法律确定性在伊贾拉-蒙大拿州比照与租赁合同比较研究中的实施

M. Huda, Muhammad Ridwan Lubis
{"title":"法律确定性在伊贾拉-蒙大拿州比照与租赁合同比较研究中的实施","authors":"M. Huda, Muhammad Ridwan Lubis","doi":"10.30659/AKTA.V8I2.15459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In recent times, it has become common among the public regarding the Ijarah Muntahiya Bittamlik (IMBT) contract. IMBT is a contract similar to a lease and purchase agreement. In practice in the community, these two contracts are carried out by means of renting first and ending with buying and selling. Although, in general they have similarities, these two agreements have differences that have different consequences. The research method used in this study is doctrinal legal research with a comparative law approach. The results of this study indicate that the IMBT contract has more legal certainty than the lease-purchase agreement. This is because the IMBT contract has provisions regulated in the Sharia Banking Law, the Sharia Economic Law Compilation, and PSAK No. 107 concerning Ijarah and IMBT accounting, while the lease purchase agreement is only based on the principle of freedom of contract. The implementation of the IMBT contract also has more legal certainty, considering that dispute resolution efforts can be carried out through the provisions of Article 283 and Article 284 of the KHES by carrying out sales of the disputed object. This is different from a lease-purchase agreement, where dispute resolution efforts are generally carried out through unilateral withdrawals and the agreement also contains standard clauses that have the potential to violate Article 18 of the Consumer Protection Law.","PeriodicalId":190203,"journal":{"name":"Jurnal Akta","volume":"191 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"IIMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL CERTAINTY ON COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF IJARAH MUNTAHIYA BITTAMLIK & RENTAL CONTRACT\",\"authors\":\"M. Huda, Muhammad Ridwan Lubis\",\"doi\":\"10.30659/AKTA.V8I2.15459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In recent times, it has become common among the public regarding the Ijarah Muntahiya Bittamlik (IMBT) contract. IMBT is a contract similar to a lease and purchase agreement. In practice in the community, these two contracts are carried out by means of renting first and ending with buying and selling. Although, in general they have similarities, these two agreements have differences that have different consequences. The research method used in this study is doctrinal legal research with a comparative law approach. The results of this study indicate that the IMBT contract has more legal certainty than the lease-purchase agreement. This is because the IMBT contract has provisions regulated in the Sharia Banking Law, the Sharia Economic Law Compilation, and PSAK No. 107 concerning Ijarah and IMBT accounting, while the lease purchase agreement is only based on the principle of freedom of contract. The implementation of the IMBT contract also has more legal certainty, considering that dispute resolution efforts can be carried out through the provisions of Article 283 and Article 284 of the KHES by carrying out sales of the disputed object. This is different from a lease-purchase agreement, where dispute resolution efforts are generally carried out through unilateral withdrawals and the agreement also contains standard clauses that have the potential to violate Article 18 of the Consumer Protection Law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":190203,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jurnal Akta\",\"volume\":\"191 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jurnal Akta\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30659/AKTA.V8I2.15459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jurnal Akta","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30659/AKTA.V8I2.15459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,在公众中,关于Ijarah Muntahiya Bittamlik (IMBT)合同已经变得普遍。IMBT是一种类似于租赁和购买协议的合同。在社区实践中,这两种契约都是以先租后买的方式来执行的。尽管总体上它们有相似之处,但这两项协议也存在差异,这些差异会产生不同的后果。本研究采用的研究方法是理论法学研究与比较法方法。研究结果表明,IMBT合同比租赁-购买协议具有更高的法律确定性。这是因为IMBT合同中有伊斯兰教法银行法、伊斯兰教法经济法汇编和PSAK第107号关于Ijarah和IMBT会计的规定,而租赁购买协议仅以合同自由原则为基础。IMBT合同的实施也具有更大的法律确定性,可以通过《合同法》第283条和第284条的规定,通过对争议标的物进行出售来进行争议解决。这与租赁-购买协议不同,租赁-购买协议通常通过单方面退出来解决争议,并且协议中还包含可能违反消费者保护法第18条的标准条款。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
IIMPLEMENTATION OF LEGAL CERTAINTY ON COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF IJARAH MUNTAHIYA BITTAMLIK & RENTAL CONTRACT
In recent times, it has become common among the public regarding the Ijarah Muntahiya Bittamlik (IMBT) contract. IMBT is a contract similar to a lease and purchase agreement. In practice in the community, these two contracts are carried out by means of renting first and ending with buying and selling. Although, in general they have similarities, these two agreements have differences that have different consequences. The research method used in this study is doctrinal legal research with a comparative law approach. The results of this study indicate that the IMBT contract has more legal certainty than the lease-purchase agreement. This is because the IMBT contract has provisions regulated in the Sharia Banking Law, the Sharia Economic Law Compilation, and PSAK No. 107 concerning Ijarah and IMBT accounting, while the lease purchase agreement is only based on the principle of freedom of contract. The implementation of the IMBT contract also has more legal certainty, considering that dispute resolution efforts can be carried out through the provisions of Article 283 and Article 284 of the KHES by carrying out sales of the disputed object. This is different from a lease-purchase agreement, where dispute resolution efforts are generally carried out through unilateral withdrawals and the agreement also contains standard clauses that have the potential to violate Article 18 of the Consumer Protection Law.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信