Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Hasyry Agustin
Denpasar District Court. Photo by: RES.
Twelve foreign citizens (Applicants) recently filed a civil lawsuit at the Denpasar District Court against PT Permata Bahari Mandiri, the Karma Royal Group, and PT Karma Development (Respondents). The Applicants are claiming that the Respondents persuaded them to sign contracts which do not comply with the prevailing laws and regulations, and have also caused the Applicants to suffer significant losses.
According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by hukumonline on Friday, 10 June 2016, the Respondents were offering a so-called “Holiday Ownership Purchasing Agreement”. This agreement encompassed two contract types, specifically a Purchase Agreement and a Service Agreement. Under these two agreements, the Respondents agreed to provide the Applicants with certain benefits, as well as the exclusive right to utilize the various accommodation units and services available at the Royal Bali Beach Club.
Sylvia Maladi, the lawyer representing the Applicants, asserted that the Respondents provided no clarification to the Applicants regarding the above benefits or exclusive rights. On the contrary, from 2010 until the present, the Applicants ultimately enjoyed none of the benefits or exclusive rights which should have been provided by the Respondents according to the terms laid out in both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement.
“The issue at hand is the fact that anyone [in this case the Applicants] has the right to utilize anything that they purchase, as agreed upon under the terms of a relevant agreement. However in this case, the Applicants could not exercise or enjoy their lawful rights due to excuses made by the Respondents which claimed that there were no accommodation units available whenever the Applicants attempted to assert their rights,” Ms. Maladi explained to hukumonline.
Ms. Maladi also asserted that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement drawn up between the Applicants and the Respondents constituted the so-called timeshare agreement. Thus, the signing of the Purchase Agreement by any customer, in this case the Applicants, automatically mandated that the seller, in this case the Respondents, had agreed to comply with the various terms set out in the Service Agreement. However, the Applicants only realized that the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement which they had signed did not entitle them to enjoy exclusive rights, be they either temporary or permanent, at an unspecified later date. Indeed, neither of the agreements left room for the Applicants to exercise their rights, as the provisions set out in the agreement were intentionally designed to be favorable the Respondents only.
The Applicants’ lawyer thus considers the agreement to now be null and void (batal demi hukum), as it lacks various essential elements which are required of legal agreements. As Ms. Maladi further asserted:
“The question now is whether the agreements that they [the Applicants] signed constitute valid sales and purchase agreements? If so, then what exactly is the so-called ‘commodity’ that is being sold? Surely it is not the hotel itself, neither is it the accommodation units contained therein. Moreover, the agreement does not constitute a lease agreement, as no actual object is being leased. Thus, the ‘commodity’ being sold is the timeshare itself, which is the allocated time for the utilization of the accommodation units in question,” asserted Ms. Maladi.
Despite the Applicants having already fulfilled their obligations according to the terms of both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement, by canceling these agreements via the proper procedures, both of these agreement schemes have already placed the Applicants at a disadvantage, with no definitive legal standing as regards the claiming of their rights.
“Thus, in our petition (petitum), we are demanding that the presiding judge rules that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement be declared void ab initio (batal demi hukum). Furthermore, the presiding judge should also declare the Respondents to be engaging in an unlawful act/tort and also sentence them to return all payments made by the Applicants in full, as well as to pay additional compensation of IDR 10 billion. And last but not least, the presiding judge should also rule that the situation return to how it was originally [prior to the signing of the agreements],” Ms. Maladi stated firmly.
Meanwhile, when asked for confirmation by hukumonline, the Respondents’ lawyer, Hendronoto Soesabdo, asserted that he would first be consulting with his clients before making any statements.
At present, the case itself has passed the preliminary proceedings stage and trial proceedings aimed at examining the case will get underway on Monday, 13 June 2016. The lawsuit is being brought by 12 foreign citizens, specifically Nichole Jones, Colin Jones, Peter Joseph Norrish, Lesley Margareth Norrish, Judith Ann Louise Gordon, William James Brehaut, Jane Abigail Yates, Duncan Ross Yates, Gail Doyle, Chriss Burnell, Bernhard Weber, and Ineke Weber.
According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by hukumonline on Friday, 10 June 2016, the Respondents were offering a so-called “Holiday Ownership Purchasing Agreement”. This agreement encompassed two contract types, specifically a Purchase Agreement and a Service Agreement. Under these two agreements, the Respondents agreed to provide the Applicants with certain benefits, as well as the exclusive right to utilize the various accommodation units and services available at the Royal Bali Beach Club.
Sylvia Maladi, the lawyer representing the Applicants, asserted that the Respondents provided no clarification to the Applicants regarding the above benefits or exclusive rights. On the contrary, from 2010 until the present, the Applicants ultimately enjoyed none of the benefits or exclusive rights which should have been provided by the Respondents according to the terms laid out in both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement.
“The issue at hand is the fact that anyone [in this case the Applicants] has the right to utilize anything that they purchase, as agreed upon under the terms of a relevant agreement. However in this case, the Applicants could not exercise or enjoy their lawful rights due to excuses made by the Respondents which claimed that there were no accommodation units available whenever the Applicants attempted to assert their rights,” Ms. Maladi explained to hukumonline.
Ms. Maladi also asserted that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement drawn up between the Applicants and the Respondents constituted the so-called timeshare agreement. Thus, the signing of the Purchase Agreement by any customer, in this case the Applicants, automatically mandated that the seller, in this case the Respondents, had agreed to comply with the various terms set out in the Service Agreement. However, the Applicants only realized that the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement which they had signed did not entitle them to enjoy exclusive rights, be they either temporary or permanent, at an unspecified later date. Indeed, neither of the agreements left room for the Applicants to exercise their rights, as the provisions set out in the agreement were intentionally designed to be favorable the Respondents only.
The Applicants’ lawyer thus considers the agreement to now be null and void (batal demi hukum), as it lacks various essential elements which are required of legal agreements. As Ms. Maladi further asserted:
“The question now is whether the agreements that they [the Applicants] signed constitute valid sales and purchase agreements? If so, then what exactly is the so-called ‘commodity’ that is being sold? Surely it is not the hotel itself, neither is it the accommodation units contained therein. Moreover, the agreement does not constitute a lease agreement, as no actual object is being leased. Thus, the ‘commodity’ being sold is the timeshare itself, which is the allocated time for the utilization of the accommodation units in question,” asserted Ms. Maladi.
Despite the Applicants having already fulfilled their obligations according to the terms of both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement, by canceling these agreements via the proper procedures, both of these agreement schemes have already placed the Applicants at a disadvantage, with no definitive legal standing as regards the claiming of their rights.
“Thus, in our petition (petitum), we are demanding that the presiding judge rules that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement be declared void ab initio (batal demi hukum). Furthermore, the presiding judge should also declare the Respondents to be engaging in an unlawful act/tort and also sentence them to return all payments made by the Applicants in full, as well as to pay additional compensation of IDR 10 billion. And last but not least, the presiding judge should also rule that the situation return to how it was originally [prior to the signing of the agreements],” Ms. Maladi stated firmly.
Meanwhile, when asked for confirmation by hukumonline, the Respondents’ lawyer, Hendronoto Soesabdo, asserted that he would first be consulting with his clients before making any statements.
At present, the case itself has passed the preliminary proceedings stage and trial proceedings aimed at examining the case will get underway on Monday, 13 June 2016. The lawsuit is being brought by 12 foreign citizens, specifically Nichole Jones, Colin Jones, Peter Joseph Norrish, Lesley Margareth Norrish, Judith Ann Louise Gordon, William James Brehaut, Jane Abigail Yates, Duncan Ross Yates, Gail Doyle, Chriss Burnell, Bernhard Weber, and Ineke Weber.
(hs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Hasyry Agustin
Denpasar District Court. Photo by: RES.
Twelve foreign citizens (Applicants) recently filed a civil lawsuit at the Denpasar District Court against PT Permata Bahari Mandiri, the Karma Royal Group, and PT Karma Development (Respondents). The Applicants are claiming that the Respondents persuaded them to sign contracts which do not comply with the prevailing laws and regulations, and have also caused the Applicants to suffer significant losses.
According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by hukumonline on Friday, 10 June 2016, the Respondents were offering a so-called “Holiday Ownership Purchasing Agreement”. This agreement encompassed two contract types, specifically a Purchase Agreement and a Service Agreement. Under these two agreements, the Respondents agreed to provide the Applicants with certain benefits, as well as the exclusive right to utilize the various accommodation units and services available at the Royal Bali Beach Club.
Sylvia Maladi, the lawyer representing the Applicants, asserted that the Respondents provided no clarification to the Applicants regarding the above benefits or exclusive rights. On the contrary, from 2010 until the present, the Applicants ultimately enjoyed none of the benefits or exclusive rights which should have been provided by the Respondents according to the terms laid out in both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement.
“The issue at hand is the fact that anyone [in this case the Applicants] has the right to utilize anything that they purchase, as agreed upon under the terms of a relevant agreement. However in this case, the Applicants could not exercise or enjoy their lawful rights due to excuses made by the Respondents which claimed that there were no accommodation units available whenever the Applicants attempted to assert their rights,” Ms. Maladi explained to hukumonline.
Ms. Maladi also asserted that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement drawn up between the Applicants and the Respondents constituted the so-called timeshare agreement. Thus, the signing of the Purchase Agreement by any customer, in this case the Applicants, automatically mandated that the seller, in this case the Respondents, had agreed to comply with the various terms set out in the Service Agreement. However, the Applicants only realized that the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement which they had signed did not entitle them to enjoy exclusive rights, be they either temporary or permanent, at an unspecified later date. Indeed, neither of the agreements left room for the Applicants to exercise their rights, as the provisions set out in the agreement were intentionally designed to be favorable the Respondents only.
The Applicants’ lawyer thus considers the agreement to now be null and void (batal demi hukum), as it lacks various essential elements which are required of legal agreements. As Ms. Maladi further asserted:
“The question now is whether the agreements that they [the Applicants] signed constitute valid sales and purchase agreements? If so, then what exactly is the so-called ‘commodity’ that is being sold? Surely it is not the hotel itself, neither is it the accommodation units contained therein. Moreover, the agreement does not constitute a lease agreement, as no actual object is being leased. Thus, the ‘commodity’ being sold is the timeshare itself, which is the allocated time for the utilization of the accommodation units in question,” asserted Ms. Maladi.
Despite the Applicants having already fulfilled their obligations according to the terms of both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement, by canceling these agreements via the proper procedures, both of these agreement schemes have already placed the Applicants at a disadvantage, with no definitive legal standing as regards the claiming of their rights.
“Thus, in our petition (petitum), we are demanding that the presiding judge rules that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement be declared void ab initio (batal demi hukum). Furthermore, the presiding judge should also declare the Respondents to be engaging in an unlawful act/tort and also sentence them to return all payments made by the Applicants in full, as well as to pay additional compensation of IDR 10 billion. And last but not least, the presiding judge should also rule that the situation return to how it was originally [prior to the signing of the agreements],” Ms. Maladi stated firmly.
Meanwhile, when asked for confirmation by hukumonline, the Respondents’ lawyer, Hendronoto Soesabdo, asserted that he would first be consulting with his clients before making any statements.
At present, the case itself has passed the preliminary proceedings stage and trial proceedings aimed at examining the case will get underway on Monday, 13 June 2016. The lawsuit is being brought by 12 foreign citizens, specifically Nichole Jones, Colin Jones, Peter Joseph Norrish, Lesley Margareth Norrish, Judith Ann Louise Gordon, William James Brehaut, Jane Abigail Yates, Duncan Ross Yates, Gail Doyle, Chriss Burnell, Bernhard Weber, and Ineke Weber.
According to a copy of the lawsuit obtained by hukumonline on Friday, 10 June 2016, the Respondents were offering a so-called “Holiday Ownership Purchasing Agreement”. This agreement encompassed two contract types, specifically a Purchase Agreement and a Service Agreement. Under these two agreements, the Respondents agreed to provide the Applicants with certain benefits, as well as the exclusive right to utilize the various accommodation units and services available at the Royal Bali Beach Club.
Sylvia Maladi, the lawyer representing the Applicants, asserted that the Respondents provided no clarification to the Applicants regarding the above benefits or exclusive rights. On the contrary, from 2010 until the present, the Applicants ultimately enjoyed none of the benefits or exclusive rights which should have been provided by the Respondents according to the terms laid out in both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement.
“The issue at hand is the fact that anyone [in this case the Applicants] has the right to utilize anything that they purchase, as agreed upon under the terms of a relevant agreement. However in this case, the Applicants could not exercise or enjoy their lawful rights due to excuses made by the Respondents which claimed that there were no accommodation units available whenever the Applicants attempted to assert their rights,” Ms. Maladi explained to hukumonline.
Ms. Maladi also asserted that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement drawn up between the Applicants and the Respondents constituted the so-called timeshare agreement. Thus, the signing of the Purchase Agreement by any customer, in this case the Applicants, automatically mandated that the seller, in this case the Respondents, had agreed to comply with the various terms set out in the Service Agreement. However, the Applicants only realized that the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement which they had signed did not entitle them to enjoy exclusive rights, be they either temporary or permanent, at an unspecified later date. Indeed, neither of the agreements left room for the Applicants to exercise their rights, as the provisions set out in the agreement were intentionally designed to be favorable the Respondents only.
The Applicants’ lawyer thus considers the agreement to now be null and void (batal demi hukum), as it lacks various essential elements which are required of legal agreements. As Ms. Maladi further asserted:
“The question now is whether the agreements that they [the Applicants] signed constitute valid sales and purchase agreements? If so, then what exactly is the so-called ‘commodity’ that is being sold? Surely it is not the hotel itself, neither is it the accommodation units contained therein. Moreover, the agreement does not constitute a lease agreement, as no actual object is being leased. Thus, the ‘commodity’ being sold is the timeshare itself, which is the allocated time for the utilization of the accommodation units in question,” asserted Ms. Maladi.
Despite the Applicants having already fulfilled their obligations according to the terms of both the Purchase Agreement and the Service Agreement, by canceling these agreements via the proper procedures, both of these agreement schemes have already placed the Applicants at a disadvantage, with no definitive legal standing as regards the claiming of their rights.
“Thus, in our petition (petitum), we are demanding that the presiding judge rules that both the Purchase Agreement and Service Agreement be declared void ab initio (batal demi hukum). Furthermore, the presiding judge should also declare the Respondents to be engaging in an unlawful act/tort and also sentence them to return all payments made by the Applicants in full, as well as to pay additional compensation of IDR 10 billion. And last but not least, the presiding judge should also rule that the situation return to how it was originally [prior to the signing of the agreements],” Ms. Maladi stated firmly.
Meanwhile, when asked for confirmation by hukumonline, the Respondents’ lawyer, Hendronoto Soesabdo, asserted that he would first be consulting with his clients before making any statements.
At present, the case itself has passed the preliminary proceedings stage and trial proceedings aimed at examining the case will get underway on Monday, 13 June 2016. The lawsuit is being brought by 12 foreign citizens, specifically Nichole Jones, Colin Jones, Peter Joseph Norrish, Lesley Margareth Norrish, Judith Ann Louise Gordon, William James Brehaut, Jane Abigail Yates, Duncan Ross Yates, Gail Doyle, Chriss Burnell, Bernhard Weber, and Ineke Weber.
(hs/sp)