{"id":3182,"date":"2013-11-26T15:04:24","date_gmt":"2013-11-26T14:04:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3182"},"modified":"2016-06-08T08:00:39","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T07:00:39","slug":"award-1212","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/11\/26\/award-1212\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1212"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1212 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 90 \u2013 Demurrage \u2013 Dispute on notice of readiness \u2013 Inaccessibility and unavailability of loading berth \u2013 Force majeure (yes). <\/strong>A few hours before the vessel\u2019s arrival on\u00a0waiting anchorage at a river mouth and while the loading berth was occupied, another vessel ran aground in the channel thus impeding the access to seagoing vessels. The ship owner disputed the charterer\u2019s demurrage account with regard to the beginning of laytime and his declaration of force majeure. With respect to the beginning of laytime, the Arbitral Tribunal validated the notice of readiness, albeit tendered before the date of commencement of laydays in the C\/P, since it had been accepted by the charterer\u2019s agent, thereby allowing the vessel to join the waiting queue. It also judged that the unusual nature of the blocking and its exceptional duration did indeed constitute a force majeure case entailing the suspension of laytime, limited, however, to the delays suffered by the charterer at loading berth, and decided that the charterer should pay some extra demurrage.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1212 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 90 \u2013 Demurrage \u2013 Dispute on notice of readiness \u2013 Inaccessibility and unavailability of loading berth \u2013 Force majeure (yes). A few hours before the vessel\u2019s arrival on\u00a0waiting anchorage at a river mouth and while the loading berth was occupied, another vessel ran aground in the channel thus impeding 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-3182","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\/3182","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=3182"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3182\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3183,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3182\/revisions\/3183"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}