{"id":3188,"date":"2013-08-09T08:35:31","date_gmt":"2013-08-09T07:35:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3188"},"modified":"2016-06-08T08:36:37","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T07:36:37","slug":"award-1211","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/08\/09\/award-1211\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1211"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1211 \u2013 Rice in bags under B\/L \u2013 Damages to cargo \u2013 Letter of undertaking \u2013 Subrogated underwriters \u2013 French Law \u2013 General Paramount clause \u2013 FIO clause (not applicable) \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (yes).\u00a0<\/strong>The subrogated underwriters requested that the carrier be condemned to pay them the indemnity that they paid to the receiver while the defendant relied on the FIO clause of the charter-party and, in respect of the damages established after discharge, the General Paramount clause included in the B\/Ls. The Arbitral Tribunal pointed out that the B\/Ls did not mention the FIO terms and the carrier did not produce proof of the receiver\u2019s explicit acceptance of this clause, nor of the General Paramount clause. As the French law of 18th June 1966 opposed the possibility of relieving the carrier of his responsibility for the loading and discharging operations, the Tribunal could only decide upon the carrier\u2019s liability for cargo damages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1211 \u2013 Rice in bags under B\/L \u2013 Damages to cargo \u2013 Letter of undertaking \u2013 Subrogated underwriters \u2013 French Law \u2013 General Paramount clause \u2013 FIO clause (not applicable) \u2013 Carrier\u2019s liability (yes).\u00a0The subrogated underwriters requested that the carrier be condemned to pay them the indemnity that they paid to the receiver while<\/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-3188","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\/3188","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=3188"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3188\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3190,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3188\/revisions\/3190"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3188"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3188"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3188"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}