Ahmad Mubarak

Keabsahan Perjanjian Jual Beli yang Tanda Tangan Salah Satu Pihak Berubah dalam Perspektif Hukum Perdata

Introduction

Keabsahan perjanjian jual beli yang tanda tangan salah satu pihak berubah dalam perspektif hukum perdata. Menganalisis keabsahan perjanjian jual beli tanah dengan tanda tangan yang disengketakan dalam perspektif Hukum Perdata, menyoroti implikasi Pasal 1320 dan 1877 BW serta upaya hukum yang tersedia.

Abstract

Land holds a crucial dual role: it serves as a social asset that binds community unity and a capital asset fundamental to the economy, trade, and speculation. Human need for land is often met through sale and purchase, where physical and ownership rights are transferred from seller to buyer, accompanied by an agreed payment. However, disputes can arise, as seen in cases of underhand land sales where the seller's signature is contested after phased payments have been made, with the seller subsequently denying the transaction and claiming the signature on the agreement isn't theirsIn this writing, the author uses a normative research type, by examining legal library materials or secondary data by inventorying and analyzing laws and regulations that regulate changes in signatures that are not recognized in the sale and purchase agreement and identifying the problem. According to the findings of this research: Firstly, concerning a signature alteration not recognised by one of the parties in a sale and purchase agreement, this compromises the due diligence in its application. Consequently, the sale and purchase agreement may be annulled as it contravenes the subjective conditions for validity, as stipulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code. Secondly, the legal recourse available to the aggrieved party is outlined in Article 1877 of the Civil Code. This involves submitting the disputed signature to the court for verification by a judge. Alternatively, such verification can also be pursued through non-litigious channels, specifically by comparing the signature against various other documents.

Review

The article addresses a critical and highly practical issue within Indonesian Civil Law: the validity of sale and purchase agreements when one party disputes the authenticity of their signature. The abstract effectively establishes the problem's significance, highlighting how such disputes, particularly in underhand land sales, can lead to complex legal challenges when a seller denies their signature after receiving phased payments. By focusing on the "Keabsahan Perjanjian Jual Beli" (Validity of Sale and Purchase Agreements), the paper positions itself as a vital contribution to understanding contractual integrity in property transactions. The normative research approach is clearly stated, indicating a focused examination of legal doctrine and statutory provisions. The methodology, employing normative research, involves a thorough examination of legal library materials and secondary data, which is well-suited for identifying and analyzing relevant laws and regulations pertaining to contested signatures in agreements. The research yields two significant findings. Firstly, it posits that an unrecognized signature alteration directly compromises due diligence and can lead to the annulment of the agreement, as it violates the subjective conditions for validity outlined in Article 1320 of the Civil Code. This provides a clear legal basis for invalidating such agreements. Secondly, the paper outlines the legal recourse available to the aggrieved party, citing Article 1877 of the Civil Code, which includes both formal court verification by a judge and informal, non-litigious methods of signature comparison, offering practical avenues for dispute resolution. The paper's strength lies in its clear articulation of the legal ramifications of disputed signatures, offering essential guidance for parties involved in or contemplating such agreements. The direct reference to specific articles of the Civil Code (1320 and 1877) enhances its practical value and provides a solid legal framework for understanding the issue. While providing a robust analysis of existing legal provisions, future research could potentially delve deeper into the evidentiary challenges of proving a 'changed' versus a 'forged' signature, exploring specific judicial interpretations or cases where Article 1877 has been applied. Additionally, exploring preventative measures beyond post-dispute verification, such as notarization or robust witness requirements for underhand agreements, could further enrich the discussion. Overall, this paper serves as a valuable resource for legal practitioners, policymakers, and individuals navigating the complexities of land sale agreements, offering a concise yet impactful analysis of a frequently encountered legal dilemma.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.