{"id":3350,"date":"2011-06-23T11:13:36","date_gmt":"2011-06-23T10:13:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3350"},"modified":"2016-06-13T11:15:08","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T10:15:08","slug":"award-1183","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2011\/06\/23\/award-1183\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1183"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1183 \u2013 Agency contract \u2013 Issuance of a Bill of Lading with declaration of value without prior\u00a0<\/strong><strong>shipowner agreement \u2013 Wrong wording of a Bill of Lading \u2013 Arbitrators competence. <\/strong>On the basis of a contract of agency, a shipping agent was recognized at fault to have issued a bill of lading mentioning the value of the cargo without preliminary agreement of the shipowner and indicating the place of final destination as being the port of discharging while he knew that after transhipment a road transport was planned for the last part of the shipment. However, the shipowner having renounced to be covered by a specific insurance for this road transport &#8211; in the course of which occurred the damage &#8211; without even consulting the agent was considered to have behaved rashly. The agent was condemned to cover the loss undergone by the shipowner (difference between the condemnation pronounced in appeal and the limitation of liability which the latter would have been able to set according to the Paramount clause of his Bills of Lading) at the level of 75 %, the balance remaining to the shipowner. The arbi t rator s declared themselves incompetent for the dispute between the parties on the conditions of the insurance underwriting for the agent liability since they had not adherred to the procedure agreed in the contract.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1183 \u2013 Agency contract \u2013 Issuance of a Bill of Lading with declaration of value without prior\u00a0shipowner agreement \u2013 Wrong wording of a Bill of Lading \u2013 Arbitrators competence. On the basis of a contract of agency, a shipping agent was recognized at fault to have issued a bill of lading mentioning the value<\/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-3350","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\/3350","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=3350"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3350\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3351,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3350\/revisions\/3351"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3350"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3350"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3350"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}