{"id":3232,"date":"2013-06-13T12:32:58","date_gmt":"2013-06-13T11:32:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3232"},"modified":"2016-06-08T12:36:18","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T11:36:18","slug":"award-1208","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/06\/13\/award-1208\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1208"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1208 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex \u2013 Port congested and bad weather \u2013 Berthing delayed \u2013 Dispute on laytime calculation \u2013 Validity of remittance of NOR on roads (yes) \u2013 Time counting during delay on roads (yes).\u00a0<\/strong>On arrival on roads at the port of discharge, the master tendered his notice of readiness to the agent. The agent received and accepted it, advising that, because the port is congested, the vessel would have to wait several days before going alongside. However, the statement of facts indicated that berthing was delayed due to bad weather. The shipowner and the charterer were opposed on laytime calculation during the waiting time on roads. The arbitrators considered that notice of readiness had been validly tendered and stressed that, during waiting time, no interruption of port operations due to bad weather was reported. Therefore, on account of \u201cweather working day\u201d stipulation, the waiting time, excepting the weekend and public holidays, was to be counted as laytime and that the resulting demurrage was to be paid by the charterer.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1208 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex \u2013 Port congested and bad weather \u2013 Berthing delayed \u2013 Dispute on laytime calculation \u2013 Validity of remittance of NOR on roads (yes) \u2013 Time counting during delay on roads (yes).\u00a0On arrival on roads at the port of discharge, the master tendered his notice of readiness to the agent. 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-3232","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\/3232","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=3232"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3232\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3233,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3232\/revisions\/3233"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3232"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3232"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3232"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}