Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Wanprestasi Perjanjian Perjalanan Umroh ( Study Kasus Putusan Nomor : 72/Pdt.G/2-17/PN-Medan)

Abstract

Umrah travel agreement organized by PT. Hijrah Haramain experienced problems, beginning with the scheduling of promised departures, namely in January and April 2015, but the Umrah travel agency did not dispatch prospective pilgrims to perform Umrah, which resulted in the way the prospective Umrah pilgrims came to many offices The Umrah travel agency asked about the certainty of the due date of the departure of the pilgrimage. the actions of the parties that promised the departure of the umrah did not fulfill their obligations (achievements) in accordance with the schedule agreed upon by the Umrah travel agency with the prospective umrah pilgrims while on the other hand the umrah pilgrims had paid the departure fee for the Umrah according to the agreement and qualified as a broken promises (Default). The formulation of the problem in this research is how the default for the Umrah travel agreement on the Decision Number: 72 Pdt G / 2017 / PN.Mdn. how the judge considers the Default agreement on the Umrah trip on Decision Number: 72 Rev. G / 2017 / PN.Mdn. The method used in this study is normative juridical research, namely the type of research conducted by studying existing norms or legislation related to the issues to be discussed. The results of the study and discussion explained the form of breach of the Umrah travel agreement on Decision Number: 72 Pdt G / 2017 / PN, namely the debtor did not make any achievements at all. Consideration of judges against Default Agreement on Umrah Trip on Decision Number: 72 Pdt / G / 2017 / PN. Mdn. Stating that the plaintiff's claim was wrongly addressed (error in persona), the plaintiff's claim was vague / obscure (obscuur libel) the plaintiff's claim was based on a legal basis and unclear basis of facts so the formulation of the plaintiff's claim became vague. Based on matters contained in the lawsuit of the plaintiffs a quo or formal, vague or unclear, and sentenced the plaintiffs to pay court fees in the amount of Rp.2,019,550.- (two million nine hundred five hundred fifty rupiahs).