{"id":2243,"date":"2007-11-07T10:23:36","date_gmt":"2007-11-07T09:23:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2243"},"modified":"2016-05-25T13:44:43","modified_gmt":"2016-05-25T12:44:43","slug":"sentence-38","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2007\/11\/07\/sentence-38\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1148"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1148 – Affr\u00e8tement au voyage – n\u00e9gociation directe sans courtier – non identification du fr\u00e9teur – c\/p Synacomex nobn \u00e9tablie – inex\u00e9cution – validit\u00e9 du contrat (oui) tentative vaine du fr\u00e9teur de nier son engagement – condamnation du fr\u00e9teur \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de fret r\u00e9duite au niveau obtenable par l’exercice de la meilleure diligence.<\/strong> Inex\u00e9cution d’un contrat d’affr\u00e8tement conclu par un op\u00e9rateur australien – n\u00e9gociations confirm\u00e9es par courriel, pas de c\/p – absence de nomination – op\u00e9rateur d\u00e9clare ne pas \u00eatre partie au contrat – arbitres d\u00e9cident que l’affr\u00e8tement \u00e9tait valide, l’op\u00e9rateur avait pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 les apparences d’une partie contractante et devait \u00eatre tenu pour fr\u00e9teur – pr\u00e9judice subi est diff\u00e9rence de fret r\u00e9sultant de l’affr\u00e8tement de remplacement mais limit\u00e9 car l’affr\u00e9teur aurait pu minimiser son pr\u00e9judice en exer\u00e7ant meilleure diligence.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1148 – Affr\u00e8tement au voyage – n\u00e9gociation directe sans courtier – non identification du fr\u00e9teur – c\/p Synacomex nobn \u00e9tablie – inex\u00e9cution – validit\u00e9 du contrat (oui) tentative vaine du fr\u00e9teur de nier son engagement – condamnation du fr\u00e9teur \u00e0 la diff\u00e9rence de fret r\u00e9duite au niveau obtenable par l’exercice de la meilleure diligence.<\/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-2243","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\/2243","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=2243"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2243\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2351,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2243\/revisions\/2351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}