AKIBAT HUKUM TERHADAP PERJANJIAN JUAL BELI OBYEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA (MOBIL) YANG DILAKUKAN DI BAWAH TANGAN ANTARA DEBITUR DENGAN PIHAK KETIGA TANPA MELALUI LEMBAGA PEMBIAYAAN (STUDI PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI PEKANBARU NO.29/PDT-G/2014/PN-PBR)
ABSTRAK: At the current time,
the purchase of goods can be made in cash or credit. Credit as an alternative
way in which to meet the needs of the people is oneexample of financial
services products. In UU No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary, to ensure the security of
credit implementation process, the credit object can beregistered into places
Fiduciary. When the process of implementation of paymentcredits pengangsuran,
can occur alienation process object Fiduciary conducteddebtor to another party,
or known as the credit over. Diversion are performed by the debtor to third
parties are often not notified to the financing institutions.Diversion is done
only through agreement under hand, which according to the rules can only be
strong evidence when the parties do not recognize or deny hissignature. When a
third party take care of the administrative process Object Fiduciary, problems
will arise when one party disappeared in the process ofFiduciary Object that
without going through Financing Institution.Issues that will be examined are:
First, What is the legal effect of thepurchase agreement Fiduciary Object (car)
conducted under the hands of thdebtor with a third party without going through
a financial institution? Second,whether the consideration of judges in giving
judgment in Case 29 / PDT-G /2014 / PN-PBR has been in accordance with the
principle of legal certainty? This type of research is a normative legal
research. Discussing about thelegal analysis that is recorded in the book. The
data used is literature studyinclude among other official documents, books,
research results so forth. Datawas analyzed qualitatively in drawing
conclusions using deductive thinking.Results from this study were first,
Effects of the transfer object Fiduciary conducted under the hand without going
through a financial institution is the agreement null and void because it
conflicts with the law. Second, consideration of the judge in deciding Case
No.29 / PDT-G / 2014 / PN-PBR does not meet the principle of legal certainty.
Suggestions of authors First, the transfer of the object through the fiduciary
must Financing Institutions and using authentic deed Second, the judge's ruling
should satisfy the principle of legal certainty, without neglecting the rules
of law.
Penulis: Ivoni Saraswati
Kode Jurnal: jphukumdd151195
