Proportionality is a legal principle not only requires equility of the rights and obligations among parties based on competing values, but also has purpose to deliver justice among parties. This principle is in line with the Al Musawah principle in the Islamic contract or agreement which it also has the same goal: ad ‘adl wa tawazun. This principle is the implementation of the principle of good faith, the principle of transactions based on honesty including in terms of determining the profit margin. The research significance are to provide enhance knowledge about proportionality principle in Islamic crowdfunding in Indonesia, especially in financing contract in Islamic financial technology as a new business innovation scheme. This paper in order to promote the impartial perception and to harmonize the Islamic law and Indonesian laws. The type of the research is legal research. The research methods apply the conceptual approach to the the Islamic crowdfunding under proportionality principle in financing contract.

This study analyzed the abuse of circumstances as a factor that delimits the freedom of making a contract associated with the onset of the contract, not because of the casue which is not allowed. The abuse of circumstance is not only related to the content of a contract, but rather related to what had happened at the time of the inception of the contract as one of the parties feels constrained to determine their will in a contract. It concerns on the circumstances that contribute to onset of the contract (i.e., taking benefit from other’s circumstance does not cause the content or intent of a contract be not permissible, rather, it may cause the missused will be restricted). The abuse of circumstances may happen due to one’s superiority over another party. The superiority is not only economic in nature, but also psychological, or both. Misusing such superiority may cause circumstance abuse. It is due to inequality of bargaining power that the weak cannot avoid from, while the stronger party abuses the circumstance by imposing the contents of the contract that leads to the inequal advantages for both parties. In Indonesia, the abuse of circumstances is often used as a cause to abrogate a contract due to the defect of will, although it is not yet regulated in legislation but rather derived from a legal construction recognized by the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. It is definitely differenct from Netherlands that has regulated its misbruik van omstandigheden in article 3:44 lid 1 Nieuw Burgerlijk Wetboek.

No abstract

<p>Pasal 15 ayat (2) huruf e Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris (UUJN) memberikan kewenangan bagi Notaris untuk memberikan penyuluhan hukum sehubungan dengan pembuatan akta, artinya Notaris berwenang memberikan penyuluhan hukum sehubungan dengan akta yang di buatnya. Berkaitan dengan kewenangan tersebut dapat terjadi permasalahan jika dikemudian hari penyuluhan hukum yang diberikan oleh Notaris tersebut kemudian di tindak lanjuti oleh para pihak dalam pembuatan akta namun ternyata akta tersebut dinyatakan batal dan bertentangan dengan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Penulis dalam penelitian ini ingin menelaah dan menganalisa lebih lanjut<strong> </strong>tentang bentuk penyuluhan hukum oleh Notaris serta tanggung gugat Notaris atas penyuluhan hukum yang merugikan para pihak Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu penelitian hukum yang dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka atau bahan hukum sekunder sedangkan pendekatan masalah dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa bentuk penyuluhan hukum yang dapat dilakukan oleh Notaris hanya sebatas pada hal yang berkaitan dengan pembuatan akta saja. Notaris dalam memberikan penyuluhan hukum harus memahami substansi permasalahan yang akan diberikan penyuluhan sehingga mampu memberikan solusi yang benar. Notaris hanya sebatas memberikan penyuluhan hukum kepada para pihak namun hasil akhirnya dikembalikan kepada para pihak untuk membuat perjanjian tersebut sehingga Notaris tidak dapat dimintakan tanggung gugat  atas kerugian para pihak.</p><p><em>Article 15 section 2e Legal Constitution of Notary Public Profession </em><em>(UUJN) provides authority for notary public to conduct legal counseling in related to publishing deed. In other words, notary public has authority to provide legal counseling about notarial deed. Concerning this authority, issue that might be occurred in the future is when the counseling given by notary public is regarded as breaching and the notarial deed is canceled by the court</em><em>. The present study aims to examine and elaborate further about counseling material conducted by notary public coupled with accountability of notary public in related to legal protection of aggrieved parties in related to the legal counseling conducted by notary public. The method used in the present study is a normative legal research, namely legal research which is conducted by examining the library materials or secondary law while in finding and collecting the data is done by two approaches, namely the law and conceptual approaches. The present study concluded that notary public only has authorization in conducting legal counseling concerning publication of notarial deed. Notary public in providing legal counseling shall comprehend substantial issue that is discussed in order to provide proper solution concerning the issue. Despite the outcome of the counseling will be applied or not it depends on the parties that consult to the notary public. Notary public cannot be asked for accountability for all losses that are experienced by the parties. </em><em></em></p><p> </p>

Notaris Pengganti dalam pelaksanaan tugas jabatannya memiliki tanggung jawab yang sama dengan Notaris. Adanya tanggung jawab yang sama tersebut membuat Notaris Pengganti juga membutuhkan suatu perlindungan hukum dalam pelaksanaan tugas jabatannya sebagaimana perlindungan hukum tersebut diberikan kepada Notaris dalam Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris (UUJN). Penulis dalam penelitian ini ingin menelaah dan menganalisa lebih lanjut apakah ketentuan Pasal 66 UUJN berlaku terhadap Notaris Pengganti dan bentuk perlindungan hukum terhadap Notaris Pengganti. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif, yaitu penelitian hukum yang dilakukan dengan cara meneliti bahan pustaka atau bahan hukum sekunder sedangkan pendekatan masalah dilakukan dengan menggunakan pendekatan undang-undang dan pendekatan konseptual. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ketentuan dalam Pasal 66 UUJN hanya memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi Notaris saja tetapi tidak termasuk didalamnya Notaris Pengganti. Perlindungan Hukum bagi Notaris Pengganti berkaitan dengan pemanggilan dalam kepentingan peradilan masih mengikuti ketentuan yang bersifat umum yaitu melalui kewajiban ingkar dan hak ingkar.