{"id":2144,"date":"2010-10-11T14:28:56","date_gmt":"2010-10-11T13:28:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2144"},"modified":"2016-05-25T13:34:26","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T12:34:26","slug":"sentence-8","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2010\/10\/11\/sentence-8\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1178"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1178\u00a0\u2013 Contrat de construction d\u2019un navire de plaisance \u2013 Travaux de garantie confi\u00e9s \u00e0 un chantier tiers &#8211; Contestation de factures entre constructeur et r\u00e9parateur. <\/strong>Les cons\u00e9quences de la destruction partielle du cocon de protection pour les travaux de peinture \u00e0 la suite d\u2019intemp\u00e9ries doivent \u00eatre support\u00e9es par le chantier r\u00e9parateur qui b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiait de la clause contractuelle de substitution des assureurs construction et qui n\u2019a pas mis en cause le sous-traitant sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9 qui avait mis en place le cocon. Mais, il n\u2019y a pas lieu d\u2019accorder les p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s de retards r\u00e9clam\u00e9es par le constructeur qui n\u2019\u00e9taient pas express\u00e9ment pr\u00e9vues dans les avenants sign\u00e9s en cours de travaux, le r\u00e9parateur n\u2019ayant pas \u00e0 subir les cons\u00e9quences des modifications au contrat initial.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1178\u00a0\u2013 Contrat de construction d\u2019un navire de plaisance \u2013 Travaux de garantie confi\u00e9s \u00e0 un chantier tiers &#8211; Contestation de factures entre constructeur et r\u00e9parateur. Les cons\u00e9quences de la destruction partielle du cocon de protection pour les travaux de peinture \u00e0 la suite d\u2019intemp\u00e9ries doivent \u00eatre support\u00e9es par le chantier r\u00e9parateur qui b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiait de<\/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-2144","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\/2144","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=2144"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2144\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2333,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2144\/revisions\/2333"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}