{"id":3384,"date":"2010-02-03T13:26:44","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T12:26:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3384"},"modified":"2016-06-13T13:27:19","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T12:27:19","slug":"award-1173","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2010\/02\/03\/award-1173\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1173"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1173 &#8211; Sale contract and arbitration clause &#8211; Competence on the merits (no) &#8211; Plaintiff withdrawal &#8211; Defendant\u2019s accessory costs. <\/strong>On the ground that arbitration clause did not expressly designate the Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris with no reference to its rules, the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction on the merits but despite plaintiff withdrawn his claim, defendant maintained his counter-claim for uncovered costs. The Arbitration Tribunal accepted competence on accessory costs and shared proceeding costs between the parties.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1173 &#8211; Sale contract and arbitration clause &#8211; Competence on the merits (no) &#8211; Plaintiff withdrawal &#8211; Defendant\u2019s accessory costs. On the ground that arbitration clause did not expressly designate the Chambre Arbitrale Maritime de Paris with no reference to its rules, the Arbitral Tribunal lacked jurisdiction on the merits but despite plaintiff<\/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-3384","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\/3384","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=3384"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3384\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3385,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3384\/revisions\/3385"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}