{"id":3393,"date":"2010-02-03T13:36:29","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T12:36:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3393"},"modified":"2016-06-13T13:37:11","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T12:37:11","slug":"award-1170","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2010\/02\/03\/award-1170\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1170"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1170 &#8211; Ship building contract &#8211; Guarantee claim &#8211; Judicial survey &#8211; Respect of contractual procedures &#8211; Workmanship. <\/strong>No reserve taken by the shipowner, responsible for tuna fishing vessel\u2019s concept, in spite of damages ascertained on delivery, for which a reduction on selling price had been given. Other damages having been discovered during first voyage, shipowner made repairs after claiming for guarantee and a judicial survey. The shipyard was held liable for about 2\/3 of repairing costs directly linked to initial damages and within the scope of the guarantee.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1170 &#8211; Ship building contract &#8211; Guarantee claim &#8211; Judicial survey &#8211; Respect of contractual procedures &#8211; Workmanship. No reserve taken by the shipowner, responsible for tuna fishing vessel\u2019s concept, in spite of damages ascertained on delivery, for which a reduction on selling price had been given. Other damages having been discovered during<\/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-3393","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\/3393","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=3393"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3393\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3394,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3393\/revisions\/3394"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3393"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3393"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3393"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}