| dc.description.abstract | A Notary has the authority to make authentic deeds by prioritizing the principles
specified in Article 16, paragraph 91) of UUJN (Notarial Act). In this research, the Notary does
not use Article 16, paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 39, paragraph (2) of UUJN so that
the deed causes harm for the persons appearing. The research problems are as follows: how about
Notary's liability in a contract of buying and selling land and building in cash, how about the
legal protection for the buyer who has good faith in the contract, and how about the analysis
on the panel of judges ' legal consideration in the Verdict No. 179/Pdt/2018/PT
Btn on the contract of fully paid sale and purchase of land and building.
The research employs juridical normative method with descriptive analytic approach. The objective
is to describe a situation or phenomenon in determining whether there is a correlation between
one phenomenon and the other one. The data are collected through library research.
The result of the research shows that Notary's liability for a deed of sale and purchase contract
he has made is that when he is not prudent enough in making an authentic deed, he will be imposed
by a sanction to give compensation to the harmed party. The legal protection for a buyer who has
good faith in a fully paid sale and purchase of land and building depends on the content of the
PPJB (Buying and Selling Contract) itself The legal consideration of the panel of judges in the
Verdict No. 179/Pdt/2018/PT Btn on the fully paid sale and purchase of land and building is that
the Notary has conducted the research and verification, and in the process of signing the
contract, either the seller or the buyer do not get any complaint until the process of
writing the Minutes by the defendant is done. | en_US |
