{"id":3294,"date":"2012-06-12T10:17:06","date_gmt":"2012-06-12T09:17:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3294"},"modified":"2016-06-10T10:17:44","modified_gmt":"2016-06-10T09:17:44","slug":"award-1193","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2012\/06\/12\/award-1193\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1193"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1193 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex \u2013 Wet damage to a cargo of wheat in bulk \u2013 Refusal by receivers and port terminal to discharge part of the cargo \u2013 Distress sale by ship owner \u2013 Dispute on demurrage account. <\/strong>Having discovered some cargo to be damp, the receivers and terminal refused to discharge about one third of the cargo which they left to the ship owner who, after vessel waited several weeks on port roads, realized a distress sale and discharged it into the same terminal, leaving approximately thirty tons being ultimately rejected. Thus, the charterer and receivers failed to meet their fundamental obligation to discharge in full the cargo although they could have arranged to sort the undamaged cargo from the damaged cargo at the expense and time of the ship owner who was responsible for the damage. Demurrage calculation has been recalculated taking into account the partial liability the ship owner, and charterer who having abandoned the cargo could not profit from the sale proceeds.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1193 \u2013 C\/P Synacomex \u2013 Wet damage to a cargo of wheat in bulk \u2013 Refusal by receivers and port terminal to discharge part of the cargo \u2013 Distress sale by ship owner \u2013 Dispute on demurrage account. Having discovered some cargo to be damp, the receivers and terminal refused to discharge about one<\/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-3294","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\/3294","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=3294"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3294\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3295,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3294\/revisions\/3295"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3294"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3294"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3294"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}