Legal Strength of Consumer Financing Principal Agreements Post The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/puu-xvii/2019

N. Nasrullah
{"title":"Legal Strength of Consumer Financing Principal Agreements Post The Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/puu-xvii/2019","authors":"N. Nasrullah","doi":"10.33756/jelta.v14i2.10482","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, fiduciary certificates no longer have direct executive power and the determination of promise injuries is not determined unilaterally by financing creditors but based on agreements between creditors and debtors. This certainly has an impact on fulfilling the rights of business actors (creditors) and ignoring binding powers on the principal financing agreement and fiduciary certificate. The purpose of this study is to find out whether the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 is contrary to the main agreement of consumer financing, and How the legal strength of the consumer financing agreement after The Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. The type of research used is a type of normative research with a focus on the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The results of the study explained that the principal agreement of consumer financing with The Decree no. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 there is a conflict (conflict) but only a pseudo conflict (not a textual conflict) because in terms of intent and purpose there is no conflict, but potentially less balance the legal interests of business actors. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has destabilized the existence of the deed of the principal financing agreement. The minimum limit of proof of the principal financing agreement is not perfect and no longer binding as the law for both parties and the deterioration of the evidentiary value of the deed of the principal agreement and the legal strength of the fiduciary certificate and the principal financing agreement is in the determination of the court. There need to be regulations that regulate sanctions if consumers deliberately delay their obligations to pay credit installments and the need for the participation of community institutions, business actors, and including the government to socialize.","PeriodicalId":241586,"journal":{"name":"JURNAL LEGALITAS","volume":"186 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JURNAL LEGALITAS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33756/jelta.v14i2.10482","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, fiduciary certificates no longer have direct executive power and the determination of promise injuries is not determined unilaterally by financing creditors but based on agreements between creditors and debtors. This certainly has an impact on fulfilling the rights of business actors (creditors) and ignoring binding powers on the principal financing agreement and fiduciary certificate. The purpose of this study is to find out whether the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 is contrary to the main agreement of consumer financing, and How the legal strength of the consumer financing agreement after The Constitutional Court Decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. The type of research used is a type of normative research with a focus on the statutory approach and the conceptual approach. The results of the study explained that the principal agreement of consumer financing with The Decree no. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 there is a conflict (conflict) but only a pseudo conflict (not a textual conflict) because in terms of intent and purpose there is no conflict, but potentially less balance the legal interests of business actors. Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has destabilized the existence of the deed of the principal financing agreement. The minimum limit of proof of the principal financing agreement is not perfect and no longer binding as the law for both parties and the deterioration of the evidentiary value of the deed of the principal agreement and the legal strength of the fiduciary certificate and the principal financing agreement is in the determination of the court. There need to be regulations that regulate sanctions if consumers deliberately delay their obligations to pay credit installments and the need for the participation of community institutions, business actors, and including the government to socialize.
第18/puu-xvii/2019号宪法法院判决后消费者融资主体协议的法律效力
在宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定之后,信托证不再具有直接执行权力,承诺损害的确定不是由融资债权人单方面决定,而是基于债权人和债务人之间的协议。这当然会对履行商业行为者(债权人)的权利和忽视主要融资协议和信托书上的约束力产生影响。本研究的目的在于探究宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号判决是否违背了消费金融的主体协议,以及宪法法院第18 / PUU-XVII / 2019号判决之后的消费金融协议的法律效力如何。所使用的研究类型是一种规范性研究,侧重于法定方法和概念方法。研究结果解释说,消费者融资的主要协议与第2号法令。18 / PUU-XVII / 2019存在冲突(冲突),但只是伪冲突(不是文本冲突),因为就意图和目的而言,不存在冲突,但可能不太平衡商业行为者的法律利益。宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定破坏了主要融资协议契据的存在。主融资协议的最低证明限度不完善,对双方不再具有法律约束力,主融资协议契据的证据价值和信义证书、主融资协议的法律效力的恶化,在法院判定。如果消费者故意拖延支付信用分期付款的义务,需要制定监管制裁的法规,还需要社区机构、商业行为者的参与,包括政府的参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信