{"id":3335,"date":"2011-09-29T10:06:08","date_gmt":"2011-09-29T09:06:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3335"},"modified":"2016-06-13T10:07:18","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T09:07:18","slug":"award-1186","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2011\/09\/29\/award-1186\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1186"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Aw a r d 1 1 8 6 &#8211; C h a r t e r &#8211; P a r t y SYNACOMEX and shipment under CONGENBILL \u2013 Barley in bulk \u2013 Cargo short delivered \u2013 Wastage of 0.71 %. <\/strong>The receiver, who was not indemnified due to the conditions of its cargo insurance policy (Major events cover), was entitled to claim against the carrier for short delivery. However, the carrier could rely on the exception of art. 4-2 (m) of the Hague-Visby Rules as the use of various weighing methods and handling specific to the carriage of bulk cargoes result in some inaccuracies which are not\u00a0the consequence of an event that occurred during the voyage. In addition, the deletion of the terms \u201cless 0.50 per\u00a0cent\u201d in clause 4 of Charter-Party dealt with the freight computation but did not affect the shipowner\u2019s liability. The sole arbitrator concluded that wastage of 0.71% was not to be considered abnormal for the voyage and the cargo in question.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Aw a r d 1 1 8 6 &#8211; C h a r t e r &#8211; P a r t y SYNACOMEX and shipment under CONGENBILL \u2013 Barley in bulk \u2013 Cargo short delivered \u2013 Wastage of 0.71 %. The receiver, who was not indemnified due to the conditions of its cargo insurance policy<\/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-3335","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\/3335","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=3335"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3335\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3336,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3335\/revisions\/3336"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3335"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3335"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3335"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}