This study discusses the legal protection for buyers of apartments to impose other requirements in the form of a prenuptial agreements was not listed by the clause of Apartemen Purchase. This type of research with analytical descriptive nature. That the sales procedure performed by a limited liability company of Multi Artha Griya that was not said from the beginning of the marriage covenant is a requirement in the purchase of apartments and just said when Surya Sari Wijaya demanded to return the down payment has been paid in full, was an unlawful act which is contrary to the principles of good faith in sale and purchase in accordance with the provisions of the legislation had namely the Civil Code Article 1339 paragraph (3) that "the agreement must be implemented in good faith". The Legal protection for buyers of apartments to impose the other requirements in the form of a prenuptial agreement was not listed by the clause of apartments purchase, then it was based on Article 4 of the legislation Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection has the right to obtain compensation, recoupment and / or replacement if the goods and / or services received were not in accordance with the agreement or not as it should be. As a form of responsibility, a limited liability company of Multi Artha Griya as the developer of Centro City should to provide compensation suffered by Surya Sari Wijaya as buyers or consumers. It was based on Article 19 Paragraph (1) of the legislation Number 8 of 1999 on Consumer Protection, which states that businesses operators were responsible for providing compensation for damage, contamination, or due loss of customers or due to consumption of goods or services produced or traded. Although the Legislation of Consumer Protection had regulated the rights of consumers and businesses accountability for losses suffered by consumers, in the practice it could not be implemented properly, so that consumers suffer losses it becaused they were not got the protection of the legislation on consumer protection. / Penelitian ini membahas tentang Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Pembeli Apartemen Terhadap Adanya Persyaratan Lain Berupa Perjanjian Pranikah Yang Tidak Tertera Dalam Klausula Jual Beli Apartemen. Jenis penelitian ini adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan sifat deskriptif analitis. Bahwa prosedur penjualan yang dilakukan PT.Multi Artha Griya yang tidak mengatakan dari awal bahwa perjanjian perkawinan merupakan syarat dalam pembelian dan baru mengatakannya pada saat Surya Sari Wijaya menuntut untuk mengembalikan uang Down Payment yang telah dibayar lunas merupakan perbuatan melawan hukum yang bertentangan dengan asas itikad baik dalam jual beli sesuai dengan ketentuan KUHPer Pasal 1339 ayat (3) bahwa “ perjanjian harus dilaksanakan dengan itikad baik”. Perlindungan hukum bagi pembeli apartemen terhadap adanya persyaratan lain berupa perjanjian pranikah yang tidak tertera dalam klausula jual beli apartemen, maka berdasar Pasal 4 point Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen memiliki hak untuk mendapatkan kompensasi, ganti rugi dan/atau penggantian apabila barang dan/atau jasa yang diterima tidak sesuai dengan perjanjian atau tidak sebagaimana mestinya. Sebagai bentuk tanggungjawab, PT. Multi Artha Griya selaku developer Centro City seharusnya memberikan ganti rugi yang diderita oleh Surya Sari Wijaya selaku pembeli atau konsumen. Hal ini didasarkan pada Pasal 19 Ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen yang menyatakan bahwa pelaku usaha bertanggung jawab memberikan ganti rugi atas kerusakan, pencemaran, dan atau kerugian konsumen akibat mengkonsumsi barang dan atau jasa yang dihasilkan atau diperdagangkan. Meskipun UndangUndang Perlindungan Konsumen telah mengatur tentang hak konsumen dan peranggungjawaban pelaku usaha atas kerugian yang diderita konsumen, dalam pelaksanannya tidak diimplementasikan secara benar sehingga konsumen menderita kerugian tidak mendapatkan perlindungan dari undang-undang perlindungan konsumen tersebut.