Sitti Fausia, Hadi Tuasikal
Jurnal Indonesia Sosial Teknologi, Vol. 5, No. 7, July 2024 3528
1. Unilateral cancellation from consumers
"Usually I also have a just problem, it's a just consumer who uses a service to buy
goods, once we have bought the goods and have agreed to pay using the COD method,
namely payment is made after the goods arrive at the consumer, the goods that have
arrived at my location are leftovers I want to deliver to the consumer's address, we contact
the consumer for information on the goods that the goods have arrived at my place, the
rest is delivered, But this consumer did not respond, we did not pick up the phones, we
went to the address where the goods were ordered, but the person was not at home.
Finally, we just kept the goods in the same place, we waited for one month, and there was
no consumer information because these goods were also bought with my money, so I
resold the goods to other people because indirectly the consumer had unilaterally
cancelled. And anticipate that if the person comes and complains to me, we just make an
agreement to reorder but have to pay the cost of the goods first. Or not at all because I
bought the goods and the consumer has never paid a single penny to me. But until now,
the consumer has never come to me to ask for the goods, and I have also sold the goods
again to other people, rather than me losing money."
In this problem, the just provider loses contact with the consumer for one month
since the consumer goods have arrived at the last location of the jastip so the jastip
provider suffers losses because they do not get payment for the goods that have been
ordered by consumers who use the service of buying goods. So the efforts made by the
just provider to cover the losses they experienced are by reselling the goods to other
people. In the effort of the jastip provider, it is not illegal because the goods have not been
handed over money from the consumer which is the cause of halalness mentioned in
article 1320 of the Civil Code to the jastip provider at the agreed price, and this proves
that there will be a defect in the agreement between the two parties, referring to the rule.
So that the full ownership of the goods in this matter lies with the just provider as the
buyer of the goods.
2. Delivery of prohibited goods
"Once our admin was also in the just of goods via plane, there was one consumer
who sent his goods without paying attention to the terms of the goods that we could
receive, this consumer immediately sent the goods to the address of the plane just that we
provided, it turned out that the goods were prohibited goods in the airline we used, the
prohibited goods were liquor with an alcohol content above 70 per cent. Our admin was
indeed suspicious at the beginning when the item arrived at the Jastip address, the item
did not include the owner's name where our provision after the name Jastip must include
the owner's name, for example, just only post (Consumer name), but the item only listed
the just name and just address and did not give an explanation regarding the goods, finally,
our admin opened partially, Which before opening we informed our consumers in the
Jastip group, but no one responded either publicly in the WhatsApp group or personal
chat, our admin opened and found the prohibited item, which finally with a heavy heart
we did not include the goods in the delivery. Our efforts in this matter, we keep the goods
until the owner confirms to us, about two weeks later, the owner of the goods contacted