THE BURNING OF THE CREDIT RECIPIENT’S STOCK OF MERCHANDISE DOES NOT ELIMINATE OR REDUCE THEIR OBLIGATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE CREDIT AGREEMENT
The Supreme Court stated that the reason why the Cassation Respondent/Plaintiff did not pay off his debt (credit) due to forced circumstances (overmacht) could not be justified. The burning of the Plaintiff’s merchandise stock was not related to the credit agreement and therefore did not eliminate or reduce the Plaintiff’s obligations as stipulated in the credit agreement. The credit recipient remains linked to the credit agreement even though the collateral is burned, because according to the law all of the Plaintiff’s assets are collateral for the debt.
Supreme Court Decision No. 2914K/Pdt/2001 dated 31 January 2008.
Source:
https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori/putusan/dc466b6a6497a3d302658197a52aa7aa.html
Regards,
Fredrik J. Pinakunary