{"id":2768,"date":"1999-06-02T14:17:00","date_gmt":"1999-06-02T13:17:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2768"},"modified":"2016-05-30T14:17:46","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T13:17:46","slug":"sentence-1008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1999\/06\/02\/sentence-1008\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1008"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1008\u00a0\u2013 <\/strong>Contrat d’agence – repr\u00e9sentation commerciale -Prescription – compte courant – transport conteneurs – fautes diverses – responsabilit\u00e9 de l’agent (oui) – int\u00e9r\u00eats contractuels – taux excessif – clause p\u00e9nale – r\u00e9duction par le Tribunal – indemnit\u00e9 de r\u00e9siliation (non)- Loi 25 Juin 91. 1er degr\u00e9 : Dardelet dissident – sentence 1er degr\u00e9 infirm\u00e9e.<\/strong> R\u00e9siliation par armateur – solde du compte courant seul susceptible de prescription selon d\u00e9lai du droit commun – non respect des r\u00e9glementations internationales et nationales – d\u00e9faut de surveillance des conteneurs en souffrance – non r\u00e9cup\u00e9ration des frais de stationnement aupr\u00e8s des destinataires – non respect des instructions concernant le postacheminement – taux d’int\u00e9r\u00eat contractuel jug\u00e9 excessif et r\u00e9duit par arbitres – clause p\u00e9nale – demande reconventionnelle pour indemnit\u00e9 de r\u00e9siliation – application de la loi du 25 Juin 91 – demande rejet\u00e9e car tardive.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1008\u00a0\u2013 Contrat d’agence – repr\u00e9sentation commerciale -Prescription – compte courant – transport conteneurs – fautes diverses – responsabilit\u00e9 de l’agent (oui) – int\u00e9r\u00eats contractuels – taux excessif – clause p\u00e9nale – r\u00e9duction par le Tribunal – indemnit\u00e9 de r\u00e9siliation (non)- Loi 25 Juin 91. 1er degr\u00e9 : Dardelet dissident – sentence 1er degr\u00e9 infirm\u00e9e.<\/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-2768","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\/2768","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=2768"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2768\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2769,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2768\/revisions\/2769"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}