Rethinking Consumer Protection in Commercial Property Transactions: Lessons from Double-Sale Kiosk Agreements

Abstract

Purpose of the study: This study examines the legal protection afforded to consumers in kiosk sale-purchase agreements executed at New Makassar Mall, Makassar, Indonesia, with specific attention to the adequacy of under-hand deed (akta di bawah tangan) agreements and the application of Law No. 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection (Undang-Undang Perlindungan Konsumen, UUPK). The research investigates the legal vulnerabilities arising from the re-sale of a commercial kiosk by the business actor (PT. Melati Tunggal Inti Raya) to a second consumer, without the knowledge of the first consumer, and assesses the legal consequences under both civil law and consumer protection frameworks.

Methodology: A normative-empirical legal research design was adopted. Data were collected through structured focused interviews with key informants — including the corporate General Affair officer of PT. Melati Tunggal Inti Raya, the First Consumer (H. Ilham Rasyid), and the Second Consumer (H. Alimuddin) — supplemented by documentary analysis of the Sale-Purchase Binding Agreements (Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli, PPJB) and relevant legal instruments. Data were analysed using qualitative-descriptive methods with a deductive approach, cross-referencing primary legislative sources, including the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, KUHPerdata) and the UUPK.

Results: The sale-purchase agreements for both the First Consumer (PPJB No. 00494/MTIR-PPJB/LD-BS-B/VII/2017) and the Second Consumer (PPJB No. 00565/MTIR-PPJB/LD-A/II/2019) were executed as under-hand deed agreements. The Second Consumer's PPJB was subsequently notarially registered, while the First Consumer's was neither registered nor physically delivered to the consumer. The business actor resold the kiosk units to the Second Consumer without disclosure to the First Consumer, constituting violations of the good faith principle and the consumer's right to information under Articles 4 and 7 of the UUPK. However, the First Consumer was found legally unprotected partly due to their own non-fulfillment of installment payment obligations, as stipulated in the PPJB and consistent with the principle of reciprocal obligation under Articles 1266–1267 of the KUHPerdata.

Conclusions: The study concludes that consumer legal protection in commercial kiosk transactions in Indonesia remains structurally deficient, particularly where under-hand deed agreements are used without notarial registration or physical delivery of agreement copies to consumers. The mutual obligation principle under Indonesian contract law creates a dual vulnerability in which consumers may lose both their material investment and their legal standing when installment defaults occur. Regulatory reform requiring mandatory notarial registration of all commercial property PPJBs and obligatory disclosure of agreement copies to consumers is urgently recommended.