{"id":3139,"date":"2015-09-23T13:07:01","date_gmt":"2015-09-23T12:07:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3139"},"modified":"2016-06-08T08:03:00","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T07:03:00","slug":"award-1225","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2015\/09\/23\/award-1225\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1225"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1225 \u2013 2nd degree \u2013 Liner agency agreement &#8211; Delivery of container s agains t let ter s of guarantee without production of B\/L &#8211; Legal framework of Carrier\/Agent contractual relationship \u2013 Time bar application &#8211; Agent\u2019s liability. <\/strong>Against the Carrier\u2019s instructions, three containes shipped separately were delivered to the Receiver against simple letters of indemnity contrarily to Carrier\u2019s instructions. The goods were not been paid for and, the Shipper having lodged a claim against the Carrier, the latter indemnified him and turned against the Agent and its parent company to recover his loss. The Agent argued the claim was time-barred by virtue of the limitation of one year to be applied to a port agent contract while the Carrier maintained it was a liner agency contract with a five year time bar. On account of the principle of autonomy of legal entities, the arbitrators dismissed the claim against the Agent\u2019s parent company which was not party to the agency contract and declared themselves not competent to settle a claim against it. Then, they considered the orders concerning the delivery of the containers related to the duties of a port agent, for which a time-bar of one year applied according to art. L5413-5 of the French \u201cCode des Transports\u201d. The Carrier\u2019s claims against his Agent were put forward after more than one year and had to be considered as time-barred except in case of interruption of the time-bar. Therefore, an exchange of e-mails between the Carrier and his Agent was construed by the arbitrators as an acknowledgement by the Agent of his liability at a time when a claim for the third shipment was not yet timebarred. Consequently the arbitral tribunal decided that the Agent should indemnify the Carrier for the thi rd shipment only and that arbitration costs should be equally shared.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1225 \u2013 2nd degree \u2013 Liner agency agreement &#8211; Delivery of container s agains t let ter s of guarantee without production of B\/L &#8211; Legal framework of Carrier\/Agent contractual relationship \u2013 Time bar application &#8211; Agent\u2019s liability. Against the Carrier\u2019s instructions, three containes shipped separately were delivered to the Receiver against simple letters<\/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":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3139","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=3139"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3139\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3140,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3139\/revisions\/3140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}