Three mistakes in law implementation used as the defendants to file a casation was rejected by the Supreme Judge Board.

The Supreme Court was establishing stronger principles in making a contract. It has become a principle that a contract or an agreement bound the makers and acted as a legislation. Those principles were not only established in article 1338 of the Penal Code, but also the judges stipulation. One of the latest verdict that supported the principles was the Supreme Court’s verdict on case No. 1287 K/Pdt/2007.

The Casation Judges Board consisted of Atja Sondjaja, H. Muhammad Taufik, dan Mohammad Saleh in the verdict seemed to refirm the contract principles. “the contract agreed by the petitioner and the petitionee as mentioned in P.1 evidence bound the petitioner and the petitionee and acted as a legislation for them,” emphasized in the copy of the verdict hukumonline got.  

With that simple argument also the board refused the casation filed by the petitioner. The Board put aside three reasons used by the defendant to file the casation. The defendant believed that the verdicts of first-level trial and appeal court had wrongly imposed the law. First, the judex factie was considered to abandon one evidence was not an evidence principle (unus testis nullus testis) because the judge only reffered  to a letter evidence. Moreover, there were no witness heard was sworn in.

The second argument set forth in the casation memory was that the agreement between two parties was not debt as mentioned in the judex factie but a working/service agreement the percentage of which could still be considered. Third, the judex factie was wrong because it considered the authentic act the same as the illegal act. But in the verdict read on February 6, the casation board put aside the defendant’s three reasons. “The reasons can not be considered as right, because the judex factie is wrongly implementing the law,” that was the result of the casation Board.

Judex factie mentioned is the Medan District Court and North Sumatra High Court. It was the dispute between two friends that became the main point of this case: Gunawan Kusno and Dasril. Two of them were Medan people who knew each other well for a long time.

As explained in the file of the case, the agreement of the two began when the defendant came to seek help to the petitioner. At that time the defendant was having his property case brought before the court. In return to the help, the defendant promised that if he won the case then half of the benefit was for the petitioner. The words were said in front of a notary.

Based on solidarity, Gunawan was willing to help. The total ammount of money given reached 150 millions. Nontheless, the receiving money in several times was without any receipt. The letter of Agreement was made afterward, not until the family forced Gunawan to make a written contract.

In the history, Dasril won the case against the third party. According to the promise, Gunawan should have received half of the price. Nevertheless, in Gunawan version, the defendant was getting more difficult to find. In fact, even before the court Dasril pressed charges against Gunawan for slander because of the penal charge that did not tell the truth.

Indeed after the trial, Medan District Court granted half of the charge. The Court stated that the defendant failed to keep the promise and had to return the Rp 150 million. The defendant also had to submit half of the selling once promised. The High Court backed the verdict. Finally, with the rejection for filing a casation, then the sentenced issued became stronger. Unfortunately, there is no confirmation from Dasril and Gunawan about the legal effort they took after receing the copy og the verdict of their case.

Based on hukumonline record, a contract might often be the trigger of a dispute. The different of interpretations about the content of a contract, or a leader who did not read the contract carefully, one-sided dismissal, even the situation misuse could trigger the dispute over a contract. The misuse of the situation for example existed because of the unequal position of each party in the contract. That was considered as the cause for the existence of firm clauses.

To hukumonline several time ago, Agus Yudha commented that to see the equality in a contract had to be seen from the kind of the contract. Contract legal Lecturer from Airlangga University Surabaya emphasized on the balance of a contract had to be seen from the rights and obligations involved, whether they were proportional or not. In a business contract, the balance was not merely about the rights and obligation, but also the risks that might appear.
 
Source www.hukumonline.com
Photo courtesy of http://www.google.go.id
Translated by Yogi Djatnika (MKRI)