Limitations of Fraud and Default

By Heksa Archie Putra Nugraha

10 Feb 2024 07:00 WIB 10 February 2024 07:00 WIB 14 minutes reading time: 14 minutes 70 read

Updated: 12 Feb 2024 03:21 WIB 12 February 2024 03:21 WIB

This article discusses the differentiating points between the criminal act of fraud and default, accompanied by examples of verdicts.

Opinion Note

This opinion article was written by a contributor/columnist. The views expressed are entirely the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors.

CONTRIBUTOR PROGRAM

You can become a columnist at Legal Literacy.

Submit your legal opinion/analysis writing. If it is published, you have the opportunity to obtain a payout/honorarium in accordance with the provisions.

Submit Article Read Guidelines

Table of Contents

Validity of a Contract
Agreement of the parties
The parties are legally competent
The existence of a specific matter
A permissible causa
General Overview of Default
Criminal Act of Fraud and Default
The party signing the contract relies on the substantial fact that was deceived.
Fraud also includes nondisclosure.
Fraud also includes partial truth.
Fraud by action.
Conclusion

Baca tanpa iklan.

Gabung Membership

Forms of coercion can include crimes or threats of crimes, imprisonment or threats of imprisonment, unlawful seizure and possession, or threats of unlawful seizure and possession. Threats may also take the form of any other unlawful act, such as economic pressure, physical and mental suffering, placing another party in a state of fear, and the like.[10]

Fraud (bedrog)

Fraud is regulated in Article 1238 of the Civil Code, which constitutes deception and can be a reason for canceling an agreement. In this condition, the defrauded party has indeed expressed the will to enter into a contract with all its legal consequences, but the expression of will is caused by deception intentionally directed to deceive the defrauded party. The element of fraud is not only a false statement, but there must be a series of lies, a series of untrue stories, and any deceptive actions/attitudes.[11]

According to Sudargo Gautama[12], fraud consists of four elements, namely an act with malicious intent, except for negligence in conveying hidden defects in an object, committed before the agreement is made, intended with the intention or purpose of having the other party sign the agreement, and other actions solely performed with malicious intent. A contract with an element of fraud can be revoked before the court.

Error (dwaling)

Error is a condition in which one party has a false perception of the subject or object of the agreement. Dwaling is divided into two, namely error in persona and error in substansia. Error in persona is an error regarding the person, for example, when A makes an agreement with B, a famous chicken seller in the village. When the agreement has been signed, it is revealed that the one who signed was C, B's son who is trying to take over his father's business. Thus, A can file for cancellation of the agreement in court.

On the other hand, error in substantia is an error regarding the characteristics of the object of the agreement, for example, A intends to buy a Monalisa painting, but it turns out that the painting is only a replica whose value is far below the original Monalisa painting.

In addition to the three defects of consent above, along with the development of the contract law regime, another defect of consent is also known, namely abuse of circumstances or misbruik van omstandigheden. Although not regulated in the Civil Code, various court decisions have repeatedly used this doctrine as the basis for canceling agreements, such as Decision Number 1904 K/Sip/1982, Decision Number 1329 K/Pdt/2001, Decision Number 3956 K/Pdt/2000, and so on.