KLAUSULA BAKU PERJANJIAN KEMITRAAN ANTARA PT. MUSTIKA JAYA LESTARI DENGAN PETERNAK AYAM JATINEGARA TEGAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractPartnership agreement between PT. Mustika Jaya Lestari and Chicken Farmers ofJatinegaraTegal was made and agreed based on the standard clause.However, the implementation was not in accordance with the content of the agreement. The article aims to find out how the standard clause of partnership agreement between PT. Mustika Jaya Lestari with Chicken Farmers of Jatinegara Tegal and how the implementation is in the perspective of justice.The results of the article show that standard clause of partnership between PT.Mustika Jaya Lestari and Chicken Farmers of JatinegaraTegal was not contradictory with The Law Number 8 Year 1999 on Consumer Protection.While for the implementation of the standard cause was not fair for the farmers,because there was a default by PT. Mustika Jaya Lestari to the farmers so that they had to take the loss independently. Keywords: standard clause; partnership agreement; default.AbstrakPerjanjian kemitraan antara PT.Mustika Jaya Lestari dengan Peternak Ayam Jatinegara Tegal dibuat dan disepakati berdasarkan pada klausula baku.Namun implementasinya tidak sesuai dengan isi perjanjian.Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana klausula baku perjanjian kemitraan antara PT.Mustika Jaya Lestari dengan Peternak Ayam Jatinegara Tegal dan bagaimana implementasinya dalam perspektif keadilan. Artikel ini menunjukan bahwa klausula baku perjanjian kemitraan antara PT.Mustika Jaya Lestari dengan Peternak ayam Jatinegara Tegal tidak bertentangan dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 Tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Sedangkan implementasi klausula baku tersebut tidak adil bagi pihak peternak, karena terjadi wanprestasi oleh pihak PT. Mustika Jaya Lestari kepada peternak sehingga peternak harus menanggung kerugian secara mandiri. Kata kunci: klausula baku; perjanjian kemitraan; wanprestasi.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".