{"id":3147,"date":"2015-07-24T13:23:57","date_gmt":"2015-07-24T12:23:57","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3147"},"modified":"2016-06-08T07:56:25","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T06:56:25","slug":"award-1223-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2015\/07\/24\/award-1223-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1223"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1223 \u2013 Rice in bags under B\/L \u2013 Shortage at discharging \u2013 Letter of undertaking giving competence to CAMP &#8211; Subrogated insurers \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (yes). <\/strong>During discharge in Dakar of a cargo of rice in bags loaded in Thailand, a shortage was ascertained. As the vessel had previously discharged a part cargo in\u00a0Nouakchott where some bags were also found to be missing, the carrier asserted that the latter should have remained on board when arriving in Dakar and as the cargo was discharged there in its entirety, he could not be found liable according to the article 4.2 (q) of the Convention of Brussels. In return, the insurers were claiming the carrier was fully responsible towards the holder of the bills of lading. The arbitral tribunal judged that, having issued clean bills of lading, the carrier did not produce evidence that he could benefit from an exception as provided by the Brussels Convention and that he had to indemnify the claimants for the shortage. However, the tribunal accepted not to hold the carrier liable for the losses due to torn bags during discharge operations performed on receiver\u2019s behalf.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1223 \u2013 Rice in bags under B\/L \u2013 Shortage at discharging \u2013 Letter of undertaking giving competence to CAMP &#8211; Subrogated insurers \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (yes). During discharge in Dakar of a cargo of rice in bags loaded in Thailand, a shortage was ascertained. As the vessel had previously discharged a part cargo in\u00a0Nouakchott<\/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-3147","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\/3147","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=3147"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3147\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3148,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3147\/revisions\/3148"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3147"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3147"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3147"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}