{"id":2685,"date":"2000-05-25T13:00:15","date_gmt":"2000-05-25T12:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2685"},"modified":"2016-05-30T13:00:54","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T12:00:54","slug":"sentence-1034","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2000\/05\/25\/sentence-1034\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1034"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 1034 \u2013 Construction Navale &#8211; avaries arbre manivelle MP &#8211; recevabilit\u00e9 de la demande des assureurs subrog\u00e9s &#8211; armateur propri\u00e9taire et armateur exploitant &#8211; cession de droits &#8211; loi du 3 Janvier 67 &#8211; garantie de vices cach\u00e9s (oui) &#8211; prescription (non) &#8211; dommages int\u00e9r\u00eats (oui).<\/strong> Construction remorqueur &#8211; nombreux d\u00e9sordre sur arbre manivelle &#8211; assur\u00e9s dument indemnis\u00e9s donc recevabilit\u00e9 demandes des assureurs &#8211; demande des armateurs exploitants \u00e9galement recevable car cession de cr\u00e9ances r\u00e9guli\u00e8rement signifi\u00e9e au chantier &#8211; c\/p coque nue mettant co\u00fbt entretien \u00e0 charge de l&rsquo;armateur exploitant &#8211; mise en oeuvre de la garantie l\u00e9gale pour vices cach\u00e9s &#8211; prescription rejet\u00e9e car action engag\u00e9e avant d\u00e9couverte du vice cach\u00e9 (pr\u00e9 rapport d&rsquo;expertise judiciaire) &#8211; r\u00e9paration du pr\u00e9judice (oui).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 1034 \u2013 Construction Navale &#8211; avaries arbre manivelle MP &#8211; recevabilit\u00e9 de la demande des assureurs subrog\u00e9s &#8211; armateur propri\u00e9taire et armateur exploitant &#8211; cession de droits &#8211; loi du 3 Janvier 67 &#8211; garantie de vices cach\u00e9s (oui) &#8211; prescription (non) &#8211; dommages int\u00e9r\u00eats (oui). Construction remorqueur &#8211; nombreux d\u00e9sordre sur arbre manivelle<\/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-2685","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\/2685","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=2685"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2685\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2686,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2685\/revisions\/2686"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}