Analisis Yuridis Gugatan Wanprestasi yang Dinyatakan Obscuur Libel dalam Perjanjian Pembiayaan (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta Nomor 266/Pdt.G/2023/PN Skt)

Erlambang, Aurathalia Griselda Putri (2026) Analisis Yuridis Gugatan Wanprestasi yang Dinyatakan Obscuur Libel dalam Perjanjian Pembiayaan (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta Nomor 266/Pdt.G/2023/PN Skt). Undergraduate thesis, UPN Veteran Jawa Timur.

	Text (Cover) 22071010270-cover.pdf Download (59MB)
	Text (Bab 1) 22071010270-bab 1.pdf Download (390kB)
	Text (Bab 2) 22071010270-bab 2.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only until 22 October 2029. Download (262kB)
	Text (Bab 3) 22071010270-bab 3.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only until 22 October 2029. Download (148kB)
	Text (Bab 4) 22071010270-bab 4.pdf Download (117kB)
	Text (Daftar Pustaka) 22071010270-daftarpustaka.pdf Download (123kB)
	Text (Lampiran) 22071010270-lampiran.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only until 22 October 2029. Download (1MB)

Abstract

This study is motivated by a breach-of-contract lawsuit arising from a financing agreement that was declared unclear due to inconsistencies between the posita (statement of claim) and the petitum (relief sought) in Surakarta District Court Decision Number 266/Pdt.G/2023/PN Skt. The research questions concern the legal grounds on which the judge declared the breach-of-contract lawsuit obscuur libel and the legal implications of that decision for the parties to the financing agreement. This study aims to analyze the judge’s considerations and the legal consequences of a decision declaring the lawsuit inadmissible. The study uses a normative juridical method, applying statutory, case, and conceptual approaches through an analysis of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Its theoretical framework draws on contract law, breach of contract, fiduciary security law, civil procedure, and the concepts of obscuur libel and niet ontvankelijke verklaard. The findings show that the judge deemed the lawsuit formally defective because the posita did not explain the Co-Defendant’s legal standing, while the petitum included a claim against the Co-Defendant. As a result, the merits of the case were not examined, the Defendant could not be declared in breach of contract, and the parties’ legal relationship remained governed by the original financing agreement.

Item Type:

Thesis (Undergraduate)

Contributors: