Cancellation Standard of Agreements Based on the Doctrine of Undue Influence in Court Verdicts

A. Budhiawan, T. Kamello, N. N. Sirait, H. Purba

Abstract


The doctrine of undue influnce has now become one of the new grounds of will defect to cancel the agreement or contract in the court’s practices. Undue influence as a condition of will defect is not set out in the Civil Code. This study discusses the cancellation standard of the agreement due to a defect of will be based on the doctrine of undue influence in the court judgments. The research method is a normative juridical through several approaches: doctrinal approach and theoretical approach that are associated with secondary data in the form of statutory provisions, and court verdicts relating to the legal problems. The results of the study found that the court verdicts to cancel the agreement based on the doctrine of undue influnce is occurs due to two main factors: the economic excellence factor and the psychiatric excellence factor. Several elements used to see the event are (1) the existence of a special circumstance, (2) a real thing, (3) abuse of circumstance, and (4) causal relationship. It can be concluded that undue influence doctrine is contrary to the principle of justice, the principle of freedom of contract, the principle of consensus, the principle of good faith, as well as the principles of decency and habit. It’s recommended to form a legal norm in the Civil Code. The doctrine of undue influence should also be specified to limited circumstances of pre-contract, after execution of the contract, or because of a real loss for either the involved parties.


Keywords


cancellation standard; agreements; undue influence; verdicts

Full Text:

PDF

References


Agus Yudha Hernoko. (2011). Hukum Perjanjian, Asas Proporsionalitas Dalam Kontrak Komersil, (Jakarta: Kencana), hal. 112.

Ahmadi Miru. (2010). Hukum Kontrak Perancangan Kontrak, (Jakarta: Rajawali Pers), hal. 165

A. Rahim. (2014).“Penyalahgunaan Keadaan Dalam Hukum Perjanjian”, Jurnal Jurisprudence, Volume 1 Nomor 2 Desember, hal. 86

AZ. Nasution. (2001). Hukum Perlindungan Konsumen, (Jakarta: Diadit Media), hal. 94

Endro Martono. (2015). “Penyalahgunaan Keadaan Sebagai Dasar Pembatalan Perjanjian”, Jurnal Yustisia Merdeka, Vol.1, No.2, September, hal. 10.

Fatmah Paparang. (2016). “Misbruik Van Omstandigheden Dalam Perkembangan Hukum Kontrak”, Jurnal Hukum Unsrat, Vol.22, No.6, Juli, hal. 50.

Gunawan Widjaja. (2005). Tanggung Jawab Direksi Atas Kepailitan Perseroan, (Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada), hal. 23.

H.P. Panggabean. (2010). Penyalahgunaan Keadaan (Misbruik Van Omstandigheden) Sebagai Alasan (Baru) Untuk Pembatalan Perjanjian, (Yogyakarta: Liberty), hal. 75.

J.M. van Dunne & Gr. Van der Burght. (1987). Diterjemahkan oleh Sudikno Mertokusumo, “Penyalahgunaan Keadaan”, Kursus Hukum Perikatan-Bagian III, Dewan Kerjasama Ilmu Hukum Belanda Dengan Indonesia, Proyek Hukum Perdata, Yogyakarta, hal. 11.

Ketut Sendra. (2004). Konsep dan Penerapan Asuransi Jiwa Unit Link, Proteksi Sekaligus Investasi, Buku Penentuan Agen dan Konsultan Keuangan Untuk Sukses Meraih Lisensi, (Yogyakarta: Bayu Indra Grafika), hal. 89.

Latifa Mustafida. (2017). “Penerapan Doktrin Misbruik Van Omstandigheiden Terhadap Pembatalan Akta Notaris Berdasarkan Putusan Pengadilan”, Jurnal Lex Renaissance, Vol.2, No. 1, Januari, hal. 65.

Mariam Darus Badrulzaman. (2001). Kompilasi Hukum Perikatan, (Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti), hal. 20.

Muhammad Arifin. (2011). “Penyalahgunaan Keadaan Sebagai Faktor Pembatas Kebebasan Berkontrak”, Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol. 14, No. 2, September, hal. 288.

Muhammad Syaifuddin. (2012). Hukum Kontrak, Memahami Kontrak Dalam Perspektif Filsafat, Teori, Dogmatik, dan Praktik Hukum (seri Pengayaan Hukum Perikatan), (Bandung: Mandar Maju), hal. 216.

Megarita. (2015). “Legal Concepts the Freedom of Contract in Bank Credit Agreement”, Journal of Business & Economic Policy, Vol. 2, No. 3, September, hal. 52.

Munir Fuady. (2015).Hukum Kontrak, (Bandung: Citra Adtya Bakti), hal. 46.

Ridwan Khairandy. (2014). Hukum Kontrak Indonesia: Dalam Perspektif Perbandingan, (Yogyakarta: FH UII Press), hal. 75.

R. Subekti. (1979). Hukum Perjanjian, (Bandung: Intermasa), hal. 17.

R. Setiawan. (1999). Pokok-pokok Hukum Perikatan, (Jakarta: Putra Abadi), hal. 38.

Sukirman. (2009). “Pembatasan Kebebasan Berkontak”, Jurnal Yustitia, Vol.9, No.1, Nopember, hal. 8.

Theresia Ngutra. (2016 ). “Hukum Dan Sumber-Sumber Hukum”, Jurnal Supremasi, Vo.XI, No.2, Oktober, hal. 193, dan hal. 208.

Yahman. (2011). Karakteristik Wanprestasi & Tindak Pidana Penipuan Yang Lahir Dari hubungan Kontraktual, (Jakarta: Prestasi Pustakaraya), hal. 31.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.33258/birci.v3i4.1381

Article Metrics

Abstract view : 21 times
PDF - 10 times

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.