{"id":2741,"date":"1999-10-06T13:47:53","date_gmt":"1999-10-06T12:47:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2741"},"modified":"2016-05-30T13:48:27","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T12:48:27","slug":"sentence-1017","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1999\/10\/06\/sentence-1017\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1017"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1017 \u2013 c\/p Synacomex – farine en sacs – absence d’indication d’adresse du demandeur – intervention du chargeur \u00e0 l’arbitrage – dommage \u00e0 la marchandise – interruption du d\u00e9chargement par r\u00e9ceptionnaire – refus cargaison – obligation de d\u00e9charger – appareillage du navire – frais et surestaries. <\/strong>Caract\u00e8re consensuel de l’arbitrage interdisant \u00e0 un tiers de pr\u00e9tendre en b\u00e9n\u00e9ficier – seul l’ tiers porteur peut se pr\u00e9valoir de la clause d’arbitrage incluse dans la c\/p – intervention volontaire du chargeur irrecevable – refus de la marchandise par le r\u00e9ceptionnaire – affr\u00e9teurs ne peuvent se soustraire \u00e0 leur obligation de d\u00e9charger – en prenant la d\u00e9cision d’appareiller les armateurs ont agi de mani\u00e8re raisonnable pour r\u00e9duire le pr\u00e9judice – les armateurs ont satisfaits \u00e0 l’exigence de preuve qu’ils n’ont commis aucun manquement aux obligations de la c\/p – once on demurrage always on demurrage – attitude d\u00e9raisonnable du r\u00e9ceptionnaire compte tenu la faible quantit\u00e9 de marchandise avari\u00e9e.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1017 \u2013 c\/p Synacomex – farine en sacs – absence d’indication d’adresse du demandeur – intervention du chargeur \u00e0 l’arbitrage – dommage \u00e0 la marchandise – interruption du d\u00e9chargement par r\u00e9ceptionnaire – refus cargaison – obligation de d\u00e9charger – appareillage du navire – frais et surestaries. Caract\u00e8re consensuel de l’arbitrage interdisant \u00e0 un tiers<\/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-2741","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\/2741","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=2741"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2741\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2742,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2741\/revisions\/2742"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2741"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2741"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2741"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}