{"id":2174,"date":"2009-12-21T09:03:17","date_gmt":"2009-12-21T08:03:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2174"},"modified":"2016-05-25T13:39:53","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T12:39:53","slug":"sentence-18","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2009\/12\/21\/sentence-18\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1168"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1168\u00a0\u2013 Avaries cargaison vrac \u2013 contrat de tonnage et c\/p Gencon \u2013 clause compromissoire dans une chaine de contrats. <\/strong>Le destinataire, demandeur, s\u2019\u00e9tant d\u00e9sist\u00e9 de sa demande \u00e0 l\u2019encontre de l\u2019armateur, fr\u00e9teur au voyage dans la c\/p Gencon, recherche la responsabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019op\u00e9rateur, affr\u00e9teur au voyage et cocontractant d\u2019un groupe industriel dans un contrat de tonnage qui pr\u00e9voit l\u2019arbitrage \u00e0 la Chambre (Paris), la c\/p pr\u00e9voyant la LMAA (Londres) \u2013 la jurisprudence de la Cour de cassation permet l\u2019 extension d\u2019une clause compromissoire \u00e0 un autre contrat dans une chaine de contrats \u2013 la comp\u00e9tence de la Chambre pour conna\u00eetre du litige opposant le destinataire \u00e0 l\u2019op\u00e9rateur est reconnue \u2013 le destinataire est d\u00e9bout\u00e9 car l\u2019op\u00e9rateur n\u2019est pas le transporteur maritime (connaissement sans en-t\u00eate).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1168\u00a0\u2013 Avaries cargaison vrac \u2013 contrat de tonnage et c\/p Gencon \u2013 clause compromissoire dans une chaine de contrats. Le destinataire, demandeur, s\u2019\u00e9tant d\u00e9sist\u00e9 de sa demande \u00e0 l\u2019encontre de l\u2019armateur, fr\u00e9teur au voyage dans la c\/p Gencon, recherche la responsabilit\u00e9 de l\u2019op\u00e9rateur, affr\u00e9teur au voyage et cocontractant d\u2019un groupe industriel dans un contrat<\/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-2174","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\/2174","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=2174"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2342,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2174\/revisions\/2342"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}