{"id":3368,"date":"2010-10-18T13:06:02","date_gmt":"2010-10-18T12:06:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3368"},"modified":"2016-06-13T13:06:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T12:06:48","slug":"award-1177","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2010\/10\/18\/award-1177\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1177"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1177 \u2013 Yacht contract of construction \u2013 Invalid for fraud (No) \u2013 Expert appointment (No).\u00a0<\/strong>The discovery by the vessel\u2019s owner, several months after the delivery of a ship, of which the construction of the hull had begun six years before the signature of the contract does not constitute a fraud as far as, on one hand, the deliberatenature of this lack of information is not clearly proven and, on the other hand, it is not at all established that the noticed malfunctions are age related or linked with the early commencement of construction. Appointment of an expert is not imperative because in case of technical dispute, arbitration by a classification company is specifically provided for by the contract. The Tribunal dismissed claims of the parties and arbitration fees and expenses are shared on a 50\/50 basis.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1177 \u2013 Yacht contract of construction \u2013 Invalid for fraud (No) \u2013 Expert appointment (No).\u00a0The discovery by the vessel\u2019s owner, several months after the delivery of a ship, of which the construction of the hull had begun six years before the signature of the contract does not constitute a fraud as far as,<\/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-3368","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\/3368","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=3368"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3369,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3368\/revisions\/3369"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}