{"id":2077,"date":"2012-09-17T14:36:49","date_gmt":"2012-09-17T13:36:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2077"},"modified":"2016-05-10T14:37:52","modified_gmt":"2016-05-10T13:37:52","slug":"sentence-1196","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2012\/09\/17\/sentence-1196\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1196"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1196\u00a0\u2013 2\u00e8me degr\u00e9 &#8211; C\/P Gencon &#8211; Mouille par eau de mer d\u2019une cargaison d\u2019engrais &#8211; Assureurs subrog\u00e9s &#8211; Obligation du r\u00e9ceptionnaire de minimiser son pr\u00e9judice &#8211; Responsabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019armateur (oui). <\/strong>Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019\u00e9tanch\u00e9it\u00e9 des panneaux de cale \u00e0 l\u2019origine de la mouille par eau de mer rend l\u2019armateur responsable des dommages \u00e0 la cargaison. M\u00eame si la marchandise avait conserv\u00e9 ses caract\u00e9ristiques chimiques, son aspect mott\u00e9 la rendait impropre \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9pandage ce qui a entra\u00een\u00e9 une d\u00e9pr\u00e9ciation de sa valeur commerciale. La vente en sauvetage dont le principe avait \u00e9t\u00e9 accept\u00e9 par le P and I de l\u2019armateur sert de base \u00e0 l\u2019indemnisation due par celui-ci, d\u00e9duction faite d\u2019un pourcentage au titre de l\u2019aggravation des dommages due \u00e0 un entreposage d\u00e9fectueux par le destinataire.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1196\u00a0\u2013 2\u00e8me degr\u00e9 &#8211; C\/P Gencon &#8211; Mouille par eau de mer d\u2019une cargaison d\u2019engrais &#8211; Assureurs subrog\u00e9s &#8211; Obligation du r\u00e9ceptionnaire de minimiser son pr\u00e9judice &#8211; Responsabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019armateur (oui). Le d\u00e9faut d\u2019\u00e9tanch\u00e9it\u00e9 des panneaux de cale \u00e0 l\u2019origine de la mouille par eau de mer rend l\u2019armateur responsable des dommages \u00e0 la<\/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-2077","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\/2077","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=2077"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2077\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2078,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2077\/revisions\/2078"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}