{"id":2031,"date":"2013-08-09T13:24:08","date_gmt":"2013-08-09T12:24:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2031"},"modified":"2016-05-10T13:25:03","modified_gmt":"2016-05-10T12:25:03","slug":"sentence-1211","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/08\/09\/sentence-1211\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1211"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

Sentence 1211\u00a0\u2013 Transport de riz en sacs – Dommages \u00e0 cargaison – Lettre de garantie – Assureurs subrog\u00e9s – Droit fran\u00e7ais – Clause Paramount – Clause FIO (non applicable) – Responsabilit\u00e9 du transporteur (oui). <\/strong>Les assureurs subrog\u00e9s demandaient la condamnation du transporteur \u00e0 leur payer le montant de leur indemnisation au destinataire tandis que le d\u00e9fendeur opposait la clause FIO de la charte-partie et, pour les avaries constat\u00e9es apr\u00e8s d\u00e9chargement, la clause Paramount incluse dans les connaissements. Le Tribunal arbitral a relev\u00e9 que les connaissements ne reprenaient pas les termes FIO et que le transporteur n\u2019apportait pas la preuve de l\u2019acceptation expresse par le destinataire de cette clause ni de la General Paramount clause. Or la loi fran\u00e7aise du 18 juin 1966 s\u2019opposant \u00e0 la possibilit\u00e9 de soustraire le transporteur \u00e0 la responsabilit\u00e9 des op\u00e9rations de chargement et de d\u00e9chargement, le Tribunal n\u2019a pu que d\u00e9cider que la responsabilit\u00e9 des dommages lui incombait.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

  Sentence 1211\u00a0\u2013 Transport de riz en sacs – Dommages \u00e0 cargaison – Lettre de garantie – Assureurs subrog\u00e9s – Droit fran\u00e7ais – Clause Paramount – Clause FIO (non applicable) – Responsabilit\u00e9 du transporteur (oui). Les assureurs subrog\u00e9s demandaient la condamnation du transporteur \u00e0 leur payer le montant de leur indemnisation au destinataire tandis que<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2031","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe-fr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2031","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2031"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2031\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2032,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2031\/revisions\/2032"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2031"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2031"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2031"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}