{"id":2120,"date":"2011-09-29T13:51:41","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T12:51:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2120"},"modified":"2016-05-24T13:53:15","modified_gmt":"2016-05-24T12:53:15","slug":"sentence-1186","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2011\/09\/29\/sentence-1186\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1186"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1186 &#8211; C\/P SYNACOMEX et transport sous connaissement CONGENBILL \u2013 Orge en vrac \u2013 Manquants \u00e0 la livraison \u2013 Freinte de route de 0.71 %. <\/strong>Le r\u00e9ceptionnaire, qui n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 indemnis\u00e9 en raison des conditions de son assurance \u201cFAP sauf\u201d est recevable dans son action pour manquants \u00e0 l\u2019encontre du transporteur. Mais, ce dernier peut valablement se pr\u00e9valoir de l\u2019art. 4-2(m) des r\u00e8gles de La Haye-Visby car l\u2019utilisation de diff\u00e9rentes m\u00e9thodes de pesage et les manipulations inh\u00e9rentes au transport de vrac g\u00e9n\u00e8rent une certaine impr\u00e9cision qui ne rel\u00e8ve pas d\u2019un \u00e9v\u00e9nement survenu lors du transport maritime. Par ailleurs, la suppression de la formule \u201cless 0.50 per cent\u201d dans la clause 4 de la C\/P ne vise que le calcul du fret mais ne modifie en rien la responsabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019armateur. L\u2019arbitre unique en a conclu qu\u2019une freinte de route de 0.71 % n\u2019\u00e9tait pas anormale pour le voyage et la marchandise consid\u00e9r\u00e9e.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1186 &#8211; C\/P SYNACOMEX et transport sous connaissement CONGENBILL \u2013 Orge en vrac \u2013 Manquants \u00e0 la livraison \u2013 Freinte de route de 0.71 %. Le r\u00e9ceptionnaire, qui n\u2019a pas \u00e9t\u00e9 indemnis\u00e9 en raison des conditions de son assurance \u201cFAP sauf\u201d est recevable dans son action pour manquants \u00e0 l\u2019encontre du transporteur. Mais, ce<\/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-2120","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\/2120","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=2120"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2121,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2120\/revisions\/2121"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2120"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2120"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2120"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}