{"id":3290,"date":"2012-06-26T10:14:06","date_gmt":"2012-06-26T09:14:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3290"},"modified":"2016-06-10T10:14:51","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T09:14:51","slug":"award-1194","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2012\/06\/26\/award-1194\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1194"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1194 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 2000 \u2013 English law \u2013 Wheat in bulk \u2013 Discharging completed six months after arrival in Chittagong \u2013 Demurrage calculation in dispute \u2013 Charterer\u2019s liability (yes). <\/strong>The voyage charterer is liable towards the ship owner for the failures and faults of his receiver. Therefore, the charterer, who asked to suspend the discharging as the cargo has not been paid by the receiver, is responsible for the waiting time. If the unauthorized partial discharge of the cargo constitutes a breach on the part of the ship owner, there is\u00a0not a proven causal link between this breach and the delays incurred due to the lack of payment as shown by the decisions of the local tribunals. The arbitrators relied on the Statement of Facts to determine the demurrage account, excluding the period preceding the partial discharging in view of the terms \u201cweather permitting\u201d and rejected the charterer\u2019s counter-claim.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1194 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex 2000 \u2013 English law \u2013 Wheat in bulk \u2013 Discharging completed six months after arrival in Chittagong \u2013 Demurrage calculation in dispute \u2013 Charterer\u2019s liability (yes). The voyage charterer is liable towards the ship owner for the failures and faults of his receiver. Therefore, the charterer, who asked to suspend<\/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-3290","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\/3290","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=3290"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3290\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3291,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3290\/revisions\/3291"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3290"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3290"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3290"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}