The cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law is a significant consequence for business actors

Oct 13, 2025 by talynt.org 64 views

Cancellation of Standard Agreements that Violate the Law: A Case Study of Supreme Court Decision Number 368 K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2013

Introduction

The standard agreement, commonly used in business transactions, is an agreement made unilaterally by a stronger party, generally business actors. This agreement often contains a clause that benefits business actors and limits consumer rights, such as the exoneration clause that frees business actors from the responsibility of the losses caused. Problems arise when the clause violates Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. This study analyzed the decision of the Supreme Court Number 368K/PDT.Sus-BPSK/2013 which carries a dispute between PT. Express Limo Nusantara as a business actor and Dedek Cahyo as a consumer. This decision provides an in-depth understanding of the cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law, especially related to legal consequences and legal protection for the disadvantaged party.

What is the Form of a Standard Agreement that Violates the Law?

Decision of the Supreme Court Number 368K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2013 shows that the standard agreement that violates the law is an agreement that contains a clause that is contrary to the provisions in Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. Article 18 in this law expressly prohibits standard clauses that are detrimental to consumers, including the exoneration clause that frees business actors from the responsibility of consumer losses. The exoneration clause is a common clause found in standard agreements that violates the law. This clause is often used to limit consumer rights and protect business actors from legal liability.

As a Result of the Law of Canceling a Standard Agreement that Violates the Law

The standard agreement that violates the law can be legally canceled. Decision of the Supreme Court Number 368K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2013 asserted that the cooperation agreement between business actors and consumers containing the exoneration clause, which was contrary to Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, Cancel by Law. That is, the agreement has no legal force and does not bind both parties. The cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law is a significant consequence for business actors. This decision emphasizes the importance of ensuring that standard agreements comply with the law and do not contain clauses that are detrimental to consumers.

Legal Protection for Business Actors who are Losing Money due to Cancellation of Standard Agreements

Although the cancellation of the standard agreement can harm the business actors, the law still provides protection for those who have carried out their obligations well and do not commit violations. In the case of the Supreme Court Decision Number 368K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2013, consumers are considered to be default (withdrawing promises) because they do not fulfill their obligations according to the agreement. This results in material losses for business actors. Business actors who have carried out their obligations well and do not commit violations are entitled to legal protection. This protection ensures that business actors are not unfairly disadvantaged by the cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law.

The Importance of Specific and Fair Standard Clause

This verdict emphasizes the importance of standardized clauses that are formulated specifically and do not violate the law. The fair standard clause must provide balanced legal protection for both parties, both business actors and consumers. A fair standard clause is essential for maintaining a balance in business relations between business actors and consumers. This clause ensures that both parties have equal rights and obligations, and that the agreement is fair and reasonable.

Conclusion

Supreme Court Decision Number 368K/PDT.Sus-BPSK/2013 provides an important guide regarding the cancellation of standard agreements that violate the law. This verdict confirms that the standard agreement that contains an exoneration clause that is detrimental to consumers is null and void. It is essential for businesses to understand and avoid the use of standard clauses that violate the law to avoid legal sanctions. In addition, this decision encourages the creation of a balance in business relations between business actors and consumers by emphasizing the importance of a fair standard clause and protecting the rights of both parties.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the Supreme Court Decision Number 368K/PDT.Sus-BPSK/2013, the following recommendations can be made:

Business actors must ensure that standard agreements comply with the law. This includes ensuring that the agreement does not contain clauses that are detrimental to consumers.
Business actors must provide fair and balanced legal protection for both parties. This includes ensuring that the standard clause provides equal rights and obligations for both parties.
Business actors must avoid the use of standard clauses that violate the law. This includes avoiding the use of clauses that are detrimental to consumers.
Business actors must provide legal protection for those who have carried out their obligations well and do not commit violations. This includes ensuring that business actors are not unfairly disadvantaged by the cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law.

By following these recommendations, business actors can ensure that their standard agreements comply with the law and do not contain clauses that are detrimental to consumers. This will help to maintain a balance in business relations between business actors and consumers, and ensure that both parties have equal rights and obligations.
Cancellation of Standard Agreements that Violate the Law: A Q&A Article

Introduction

The cancellation of standard agreements that violate the law is a complex issue that can have significant consequences for business actors and consumers. In this article, we will provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions about the cancellation of standard agreements that violate the law.

Q: What is a standard agreement that violates the law?

A: A standard agreement that violates the law is an agreement that contains a clause that is contrary to the provisions in Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection. This includes clauses that are detrimental to consumers, such as the exoneration clause that frees business actors from the responsibility of consumer losses.

Q: What is the exoneration clause?

A: The exoneration clause is a common clause found in standard agreements that violates the law. This clause is often used to limit consumer rights and protect business actors from legal liability.

Q: Can a standard agreement that violates the law be legally canceled?

A: Yes, a standard agreement that violates the law can be legally canceled. Decision of the Supreme Court Number 368K/Pdt.Sus-BPSK/2013 asserted that the cooperation agreement between business actors and consumers containing the exoneration clause, which was contrary to Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, Cancel by Law. That is, the agreement has no legal force and does not bind both parties.

Q: What are the consequences of canceling a standard agreement that violates the law?

A: The cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law can have significant consequences for business actors. This includes the loss of material losses and the potential for legal sanctions.

Q: What is the importance of specific and fair standard clauses?

A: The fair standard clause must provide balanced legal protection for both parties, both business actors and consumers. This includes ensuring that the standard clause provides equal rights and obligations for both parties.

Q: How can business actors ensure that their standard agreements comply with the law?

A: Business actors must ensure that their standard agreements comply with the law by:

Ensuring that the agreement does not contain clauses that are detrimental to consumers.
Providing fair and balanced legal protection for both parties.
Avoiding the use of standard clauses that violate the law.
Providing legal protection for those who have carried out their obligations well and do not commit violations.

Q: What is the role of the law in protecting consumers?

A: The law plays a crucial role in protecting consumers by ensuring that business actors comply with the law and do not engage in unfair or deceptive practices.

Q: What is the significance of the Supreme Court Decision Number 368K/PDT.Sus-BPSK/2013?

A: The Supreme Court Decision Number 368K/PDT.Sus-BPSK/2013 provides an important guide regarding the cancellation of standard agreements that violate the law. This verdict confirms that the standard agreement that contains an exoneration clause that is detrimental to consumers is null and void.

Q: What are the implications of the cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law?

A: The cancellation of a standard agreement that violates the law can have significant implications for business actors and consumers. This includes the potential for legal sanctions and the loss of material losses.

Conclusion

The cancellation of standard agreements that violate the law is a complex issue that can have significant consequences for business actors and consumers. By understanding the law and the implications of canceling a standard agreement that violates the law, business actors can ensure that their standard agreements comply with the law and do not contain clauses that are detrimental to consumers.