Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Dengan berkembangnya praktik berkontrak seringkali timbul kerugian pada tahap pra kontrak. Namun, dalam hukum Indonesia belum diterapkan asas iktikad baik dalam tahap pra kontrak tersebut, sehingga menyulitkan para pihak untuk mendapat pertanggungjawaban. Hal tersebut berbeda dengan Hukum Perdata Jerman yang sudah mengatur mengenai iktikad baik pada tahap pra kontrak. Untuk menjawab permasalahan tersebut skripsi ini akan membandingkan pengaturan yang ada dalam KUH Perdata Indonesia dan BGB Jerman terkait iktikad baik pada tahap pra kontrak. Perbandingan pun juga akan dilakukan dengan melihat perkembangan iktikad baik pada tahap pra kontrak dalam Hukum Perdata Indonesia dan Hukum Perdata Jerman. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, studi kasus, dan perbandingan. Dari penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa Hukum Indonesia dan Jerman sama sama tidak mengenal secara spesifik iktikad baik pra kontrak. Namun, Hukum Perdata Jerman telah mengakui kekuatan mengikat pra kontrak yang kemudian didasarkan kepada iktikad baik, sedangkan Hukum Indonesia hanya mengenal iktikad baik yang hanya diterapkan pada pelaksanaan kontrak dan belum mengakui daya mengikat pra kontrak. Selain itu, ditemukan pula perbedaan mengenai perkembangan asas iktikad baik pra kontrak dilihat dari yurisprudensi kedua negara tersebut. Dalam hal ini Lembaga Peradilan Jerman lebih konsisten dalam menerapkan iktikad baik pra kontrak dibandingkan dengan lembaga peradilan Indonesia. Hasil penelitian ini menyarankan adanya pembaharuan Hukum Kontrak Indonesia dengan menempatkan iktikad baik tidak hanya pada saat pelaksanaan kontrak namun juga saat pembentukan kontrak. Selain itu, lembaga peradilan di Indonesia juga dapat mencontoh perkembangan-perkembangan yang dilakukan oleh lembaga peradilan Jerman terkait dengan asas iktikad baik pra kontrak tersebut. ......With the development of contracting practices, losses often arise at the pre-contract stage. However, in Indonesian law the principle of good faith has not been applied in the pre-contract stage, making it difficult for the parties to be held accountable. This is different from the German Civil Code which already regulates good faith at the pre-contract stage. To answer these problems, this thesis will compare the existing arrangements in the Indonesian Civil Code and the German BGB regarding good faith at the pre-contract stage. Comparisons will also be made by looking at the development of good faith at the pre-contract stage in Indonesian Civil Law and German Civil Law. This research is a normative juridical research with statutory regulations, case studies, and comparison approaches. From this research it was found that both Indonesian and German laws do not specifically recognize pre-contract good faith. However, German Civil Law has recognized pre-contract binding power which is then based on good faith, while Indonesian law only recognizes good faith which only applies to contract execution and has not recognized pre-contract binding power. In addition, differences were also found regarding the development of the principle of good faith before the contract seen from the jurisprudence of the two countries. In this case the German judiciary is more consistent in implementing pre-contract good faith than the Indonesian judiciary. The results of this study suggest that there should be a renewal of Indonesian Contract Law by placing good faith not only at the time of contract execution but also at the time of contract formation. In addition, the judiciary in Indonesia can also follow the developments made by the German judiciary regarding the pre-contract good faith principle.

Abstrak :
Dalam tatanan hukum perdata Indonesia mengatur bahwa suatu perjanjian dibuat harus didasarkan oleh itikad baik. Permasalahannya adalah bagaimana pengaturan dalam tahap sebelum perjanjian mengikat yang menimbulkan hubungan hukum bagi para pihaknya, atau disebut juga dengan tahap pra kontrak. Hukum positif Indonesia dalam Pasal 1338 ayat (3) Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata hanya mengatur ruang lingkup itikad baik dalam pelaksanaan perjanjian saja, tidak meliputi pra kontrak. Terdapat ketidakjelasan atau kekosongan hukum dalam pelaksanaan itikad baik dalam pra kontrak. Sementara itu, dalam sistem hukum di Amerika Serikat dikenal dengan doktrin Promissory Estoppel. Doktrin ini mengatur bahwa suatu kerugian yang timbul akibat dari ditariknya janji yang disampaikan sebelum adanya suatu kontrak yang mengikat, dapat dimintakan penggantian kerugian karenanya. Oleh karena itu, Penulis dalam tulisan ini akan membandingkan penerapan doktrin Promissory Estoppel di Amerika Serikat dan asas Itikad Baik pra kontrak di Indonesia dari segi teori dan penerapannya. Kata kunci: promissory estoppel, itikad baik, janji, pra kontrak. ...... An agreement made must be based on the good faith of the parties. In the Indonesian civil law system, this is also regulated. The problem is how the arrangements in the pre-contract stage are binding and create a legal relationship for the parties or also known as the pre-contract stage. Indonesia's positive law in Article 1338 paragraph (3) of the Civil Code only regulates the scope of good faith in agreements, not including pre-contracts. There is ambiguity or legal vacuum in the implementation of good faith in the pre-contract. Meanwhile, in the legal system in the United States, it is known as the Promissory Estoppel doctrine. This doctrine stipulates that a loss that arises as a result of a promise made prior to the existence of a binding contract can be requested for compensation for it. Therefore, the author in this paper will compare the application of the Promissory Estoppel doctrine in the United States and the pre-contract Good Faith principle in Indonesia in terms of theory and application.

Abstrak :
Di Indonesia asas iktikad baik diatur dalam Pasal 1338 ayat (3) KUH Perdata. Iktikad baik yang diatur dalam ketentuan tersebut terbatas hanya meliputi tahap pelaksanaan perjanjian saja. Berbeda dengan Indonesia, beberapa negara penganut sistem civil law telah mengakui iktikad baik pada tahap negosiasi atau pra-kontrak, sehingga janji-janji pra-kontrak diakui dan jika dilanggar menimbulkan akibat hukum. Karena belum ada perjanjian yang mengikat maka gugatan yang diajukan untuk memperoleh ganti rugi dianggap sebagai Perbuatan Melawan Hukum (PMH). Dengan konsep yang sama, di dalam sistem common law khususnya di Amerika Serikat, muncul doktrin promissory estoppel yang berakibat bahwa meskipun belum ada consideration namun janji-janji dapat mengikat. Adapun yang menjadi tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui bagaimana penerapan asas iktikad baik pada tahap pra-kontrak di Indonesia melalui putusan pengadilan. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yang bersifat yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan (statue approach), perbandingan (comparative approach) dan pendekatan kasus (case approach). Dalam penelitian ini diperoleh kesimpulan bahwa sampai saat ini belum ada pengaturan yang khusus mengatur penerapan asas iktikad baik pada tahap pra-kontrak. Namun demikian, berdasarkan putusan-putusan di pengadilan negeri yang dianalisis pada penelitian ini diketahui bahwa Hakim telah mengakui adanya keharusan beriktikad baik pada tahap pra-kontrak oleh para pihak. ......In Indonesia, good faith principle set in article 1338 subsection (3) on the Indonesian Civil Code. The implementation of good faith principle set out from this article is limited only to the contractual phase. In contrast to Indonesia, some civil law countries have recognized the principle of good faith on the phase of negotiations or pre-contractual phase, so the promises of the pre-contract is recognized and lead to legal consequences if its broken. Since there is no binding agreement on the pre-contractual phase, therefore to the injured party in this phase can sue for reliance damages based on tort. Based on the same concept, in the common law system, particularly in US the promissory estoppel doctrine has the effect of making some kinds of promise binding even where they are not supported by consideration. This research aims to determine how the implementation of good faith principle on the pre-contractual phase in Indonesia through court orders. It is a judicial-normative research, with statute, case and comparative approach. In this research, author concluded that til nowadays there is no regulation that specifically regulates the application of good faith principle on the pre-contractual phase. Moreover, based on court orders which analyzed in this research, note that the Judge has recognizes the necessity of good faith at the pre-contractual phase by the parties. ;In Indonesia, good faith principle set in article 1338 subsection (3) on the Indonesian Civil Code. The implementation of good faith principle set out from this article is limited only to the contractual phase. In contrast to Indonesia, some civil law countries have recognized the principle of good faith on the phase of negotiations or pre-contractual phase, so the promises of the pre-contract is recognized and lead to legal consequences if its broken. Since there is no binding agreement on the pre-contractual phase, therefore to the injured party in this phase can sue for reliance damages based on tort. Based on the same concept, in the common law system, particularly in US the promissory estoppel doctrine has the effect of making some kinds of promise binding even where they are not supported by consideration. This research aims to determine how the implementation of good faith principle on the pre-contractual phase in Indonesia through court orders. It is a judicial-normative research, with statute, case and comparative approach. In this research, author concluded that til nowadays there is no regulation that specifically regulates the application of good faith principle on the pre-contractual phase. Moreover, based on court orders which analyzed in this research, note that the Judge has recognizes the necessity of good faith at the pre-contractual phase by the parties.

Abstrak :
ABSTRAK
Hukum kontrak di Indonesia mengenal asas itikad baik, terutama dalam tahap pelaksanaan kontrak. Seiring dengan perkembangan dan kebutuhan zaman, asas itikad baik juga dikenal dalam tahap pra kontrak sehingga dalam suatu proses negosiasi atau perundingan pun juga harus diterapkan. Skripsi ini akan membandingkan hukum kontrak di Indonesia dengan sistem hukum common law, yaitu mengenai itikad baik pada tahap pra kontrak dengan doktrin promissory estoppel dan Pasal 1359 ayat 1 KUH Perdata dengan doktrin unjust enrichment. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif dengan deskriptif komparatif. Hasil penelitian menyarankan untuk menerapkan doktrin promissory estoppel pada kondisi dimana salah satu pihak percaya bahwa sudah lahir perjanjian diantara keduanya sehingga pihak tersebut melakukan tindakan demi tercapainya janji-janji pihak lawan, dan juga doktrin unjust enrichment dalam kondisi apabila salah satu pihak memperkaya diri sendiri secara tidak sah dari pengeluaran yang dilakukan pihak lain. Asas itikad baik juga harus dijunjung tinggi mengingat tidak adanya ketentuan dalam KUH Perdata yang mengatur mengenai pra kontrak secara tersurat.

---

ABSTRACT
Contract law in Indonesia identify the principle of good faith, especially in the implementation of the contract. Along with the development contract law, the principle of good faith is also known in the pre contractual phase so that in a negotiation process this principle must be applied. This paper compares the law of contracts in Indonesia with a common law system, which is about the good faith in the pre contractual phase with the doctrine of promissory estoppel and Article 1359 paragraph 1 of the Indonesian Civil Code with the doctrine of unjust enrichment. This study is a normative juridical research with comparative descriptive. Results of the study were advised to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel in circumstances where one party believes that it has been born an agreement between the two so that the parties take action in order to achieve the promises of the opposition, and also the doctrine of unjust enrichment in a state where one party is enriching himself not legitimate expenses incurred from other parties. The principle of good faith must also be upheld because of the absence of any provision in the Civil Code concerning about pre contractual phase.