{"id":3167,"date":"2014-06-23T14:33:29","date_gmt":"2014-06-23T13:33:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3167"},"modified":"2016-06-08T07:58:30","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T06:58:30","slug":"award-1217-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2014\/06\/23\/award-1217-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1217"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1217 &#8211; Transport of refrigerated containers \u2013 Lack of means of wedging inside containers \u2013 Shipper\u2019s fault \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (no). <\/strong>Two refrigerated containers, one packed with boxes of frozen chickens and the other with boxes of frozen pork, were loaded in Brazil on different vessels bound for Asia. On arrival, a partial thawing was observed due to obstruction of cold air supply inside the containers caused by the collapse of piles of boxes. The arbitrators considered that for the shipper to pile up boxes inside a container omitting to provide proper dunnage in empty spaces was tantamount to professional misconduct. To no avail, the shipper pleaded the carrier\u2019s assumption of liability since it was clear for the arbitrators that the shipper\u2019s misconduct was the certain and sole cause of the damages. On the ground of article 4.2.i of the Brussels Convention 1924, the carrier was exempted of any liability.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1217 &#8211; Transport of refrigerated containers \u2013 Lack of means of wedging inside containers \u2013 Shipper\u2019s fault \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (no). Two refrigerated containers, one packed with boxes of frozen chickens and the other with boxes of frozen pork, were loaded in Brazil on different vessels bound for Asia. On arrival, a partial thawing<\/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-3167","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\/3167","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=3167"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3167\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3168,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3167\/revisions\/3168"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3167"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3167"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3167"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}