{"id":2792,"date":"1999-01-28T14:39:07","date_gmt":"1999-01-28T13:39:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=2792"},"modified":"2016-05-30T14:39:36","modified_gmt":"2016-05-30T13:39:36","slug":"sentence-1000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1999\/01\/28\/sentence-1000\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 1000"},"content":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1000\u00a0– Construction navale – coque nue – retard livraison – vitesse non conforme – d\u00e9passement niveau sonore – p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s pr\u00e9vues au contrat – dommages int\u00e9r\u00eats pour surco\u00fbt exploitation partag\u00e9s – clause p\u00e9nale -minoration des indemnisations (article 1152 – 1231 C.C.) non. <\/strong>Charte coque nue et cahier des charges aff\u00e9rent \u00e0 la construction – accord des parties sur retard livraison – essais \u00e0 la mer contest\u00e9s – pes\u00e9e du navire par l’un des arbitres – r\u00e9sultat montrant que la vitesse contractuelle ne pourrait jamais \u00eatre atteinte – p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s contractuelles (oui) – en raison du faible \u00e9cart du niveau sonore constat\u00e9 allocation d’une indemnisation de principe – r\u00e9tention du navire pour d\u00e9faut de paiement du loyer – surco\u00fbt exploitation du fait de la mise en service d’un autre navire cons\u00e9quence d’une double faute – d’o\u00f9 partage \u00e0 50% du surco\u00fbt – demande sur le fondement des art. 1152 et 1231 C.C. injustifi\u00e9e (minoration des p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sentence 1000\u00a0– Construction navale – coque nue – retard livraison – vitesse non conforme – d\u00e9passement niveau sonore – p\u00e9nalit\u00e9s pr\u00e9vues au contrat – dommages int\u00e9r\u00eats pour surco\u00fbt exploitation partag\u00e9s – clause p\u00e9nale -minoration des indemnisations (article 1152 – 1231 C.C.) non. Charte coque nue et cahier des charges aff\u00e9rent \u00e0 la construction – accord<\/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-2792","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\/2792","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=2792"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2793,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2792\/revisions\/2793"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}