{"id":3241,"date":"2013-05-28T12:52:27","date_gmt":"2013-05-28T11:52:27","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3241"},"modified":"2016-06-08T12:53:03","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T11:53:03","slug":"award-1205","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/05\/28\/award-1205\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1205"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1205 &#8211; C\/P Orevoy \u2013 Hatch cover damaged during discharging \u2013 Provisional repairs followed two years later by definitive repairs in China &#8211; Charterer\u2019s liability (yes). <\/strong>Having paid for provisional repairs which were considered to be unsatisfactory, survey fees and demurrage due to the disponent owner, the Charterer refused to indemnify the disponent owner, the time charterer of the vessel, for payment made by the time charterer to the ship owner for the final repairs carried out in China to the satisfaction of the classification society. In view of the clauses of the voyage charter, the arbitral Tribunal decided that expenses linked to the repair of the hatch cover paid by the disponent owner or reimbursed by him to the shipowner were to be borne by the Charterer. However, some invoices, which were considered to be exaggerated, were lowered and the additional expenses paid by the ship owner were rejected as being outside the scope of the voyage charter.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1205 &#8211; C\/P Orevoy \u2013 Hatch cover damaged during discharging \u2013 Provisional repairs followed two years later by definitive repairs in China &#8211; Charterer\u2019s liability (yes). Having paid for provisional repairs which were considered to be unsatisfactory, survey fees and demurrage due to the disponent owner, the Charterer refused to indemnify the disponent owner,<\/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-3241","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\/3241","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=3241"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3241\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3242,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3241\/revisions\/3242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}