Comparison of Regulations for Dissolution of Limited Partnerships in Indonesia and in America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.58258/jihad.v7i4.9974Keywords:
Limited Partnership, Partner Liability, Partnership Dissolution, Comparative Law, Commercial Partnership.Abstract
and dissolution mechanisms in the Indonesian limited partnership and the American limited partnership. The research used a normative legal method to examine inconsistencies between written norms and their application in court decisions. The findings showed that the Indonesian limited partnership imposed strict restrictions on limited partners, who were not permitted to engage in management activities, while the American limited partnership allowed limited partners certain managerial control through safe activities. The study also found that dissolution of the Indonesian limited partnership was not specifically regulated, causing reliance on general civil provisions, unlike the United States, which provided detailed rules for dissolution caused by breach of a partnership agreement. These results demonstrated significant differences in legal protection and dissolution mechanisms within both legal systems.References
Z. Asikin dan L. W. P. Suhartana, Pengantar Hukum Perusahaan, Ed. 1. Jakakrta: Kencana, 2016.
Amiruddin dan Z. Asikin, Pengantar Metode Penelitian Hukum, Ed. 1. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2008.
Indonesia, Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Dagang, Ed. 1. Jakarta: Pustaka Yustisia, 2015.
H. M. N. Purwosutjipto, Pengertian Pokok Hukum Dagang Indonesia 2: Bentuk-bentuk Perusahaan, Ed. 12. Jakarta: Djambatan, 2008.
United States of America, Delaware General Assembly. United States of America: Delaware General Assembly, 1953.
S. Mertokusumo, Mengenal Hukum: Suatu Pengantar, Ed. 1. Yogyakarta: Universitas Atma Jaya, 2010.
P. de Cruz dan N. Yusron, Perbandingan Sistem Hukum: Common Law, Civil Law and Socialist Law, Ed. 1. Bandung: Nusa Media, 2021.
C. S. T. Kansil, Pengantar Ilmu Hukum Dan Tata Hukum Indonesia, Cet. 8. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka, 2015.
M. Bogdan dan D. S. Widowatie, Pengantar Perbandingan Sistem Hukum, Ed. 3. Bandung: Nusamedia, 2015.
J. Kim, American Law 101: An Easy Primer on the U.S. Legal System, Ed. 1. Chicago: American Bar Association, 2015.
E. C. Boyer, William W. and Ratledge, Delaware Politics and Government (Politics and Governments of the American States), Ed. 1. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2009.
J. M. Cahery dan E. Vermeulen, “Understanding (Un)incorporated Business Forms,” in Corporate Finance, Ed. 1., Amsterdam: Amsterdam Center for Corporate Finance., 2005.
Y. K. Dewi, Pemikiran Baru Tentang Persekutuan Komanditer (CV): Studi Perbandingan KUHD Dan WvK Serta Putusan-Putusan Pengadilan Indonesia Dan Belanda, Ed. 1. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada, 2016.
M. Weber, The History of Commercial Partnership in the Middle Ages, Ed. 1. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc, 2003.
R. Soekardono, Hukum Dagang Indonesia: Jilid II Bagian Ke. 2: Hukum Laut Bagian Pertama, Ed. 1. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 1986.
Kemenkumham, Naskah Akademik Ruu Tentang Persekutuan Perdata Persekutuan Firma Dan Persekutuan Komanditer, Ed. 1. Jakarta: Kementrian Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia, 2013.
Indonesia, Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata (KUH Perdata). Indonesia, 1847, hal. 354.
Suyanto, Metode Penelitian Hukum Pengantar Penelitian Normatif, Empiris dan Gabungan, Ed. 1. Gresik: Unigres Press, 2023.
J. A. Crane, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. -- Act to Make Uniform the Law of Partnership., Ed. 1. Harvard: Harvard Law Review.
J. D. Donnell, “Fair Use by University Faculty Members Under the Copyright Revision Act of 1976,” Am. Bus. Law J., vol. 16, no. 1, hal. 17–38, Mar 1978, doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1714.1978.tb00367.x.
American Bar Association, “Millennium Cumulative Index, Volumes 41-55,” Bus. Lawyer, vol. 55, hal. 287, 2000.
