{"id":3371,"date":"2010-06-17T13:08:35","date_gmt":"2010-06-17T12:08:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3371"},"modified":"2016-06-13T13:09:32","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T12:09:32","slug":"award-1176","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2010\/06\/17\/award-1176\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1176"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1176 \u2013 Second degree : Contract of Affreightment (COA) &#8211; Shipowner\u2019s partial fulfilment &#8211; Protective seizure in New-York (Rule B) &#8211; Interest of a subsidiary company to take action (Yes) \u2013 Estoppel (No) &#8211; Damage for substitute chartered vessel (Yes). <\/strong>A subsidiary of a shipping group of companies has a right to bring an action because losses linked with a substitute vessel of a COA concluded by its mother company are registered in its accounts and French case law allows to establish the existence of an economic entity even if a legal entity is not available. The shipowner having refused to nominate a vessel without valid reason will bear the costs of charterer\u2019s losses for substitute chartered vessel \u2013 Shipowner\u2019s counterclaim for his loss of earnings\u00a0because of charterer\u2019s refusal of a nominated vessel for another voyage is rejected because it was a voluntary and\u00a0purely commercial decision to put the vessel on the T\/C market.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1176 \u2013 Second degree : Contract of Affreightment (COA) &#8211; Shipowner\u2019s partial fulfilment &#8211; Protective seizure in New-York (Rule B) &#8211; Interest of a subsidiary company to take action (Yes) \u2013 Estoppel (No) &#8211; Damage for substitute chartered vessel (Yes). A subsidiary of a shipping group of companies has a right to bring<\/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-3371","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\/3371","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=3371"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3371\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3372,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3371\/revisions\/3372"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3371"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3371"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3371"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}