{"id":3179,"date":"2013-10-14T14:59:46","date_gmt":"2013-10-14T13:59:46","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3179"},"modified":"2016-06-08T08:00:19","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T07:00:19","slug":"award-1213","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/10\/14\/award-1213\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1213"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1213 \u2013 C\/P Gencon \u2013 Phosphate cargo \u2013 Deballasting problem \u2013 Notice of readiness \u2013 Dead-freight claim \u2013 Attachment in New-York based on Rule B \u2013 Counterclaim for improper attachment. <\/strong>Having experienced some difficulties in deballasting, a vessel could only load a part cargo. After several days of attempts to solve the problem, the charterer ordered the vessel to leave the berth. In view of charterer\u2019s refusal to pay deadfreight, the shipowner obtained judgment in New York for the attachment of his bank accounts. Conversely, the charterer asked to be paid damages for unwarranted attachment. The Arbitral Tribunal judged that, even after having been accepted, a notice of readiness may be challenged if facts contradict it. Then, it considered that, in view of uncertainty about the vessel\u2019s actual situation, the charterer could not be blamed for having ordered the vessel to sail. His claim for dead-freight being lost, the shipowner was condemned to pay damages for unwarranted attachment.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1213 \u2013 C\/P Gencon \u2013 Phosphate cargo \u2013 Deballasting problem \u2013 Notice of readiness \u2013 Dead-freight claim \u2013 Attachment in New-York based on Rule B \u2013 Counterclaim for improper attachment. Having experienced some difficulties in deballasting, a vessel could only load a part cargo. After several days of attempts to solve the problem, the<\/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-3179","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\/3179","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=3179"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3179\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3180,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3179\/revisions\/3180"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3179"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3179"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3179"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}