{"id":3440,"date":"2008-08-25T14:52:49","date_gmt":"2008-08-25T13:52:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3440"},"modified":"2016-06-13T14:53:45","modified_gmt":"2016-06-13T13:53:45","slug":"award-1156","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2008\/08\/25\/award-1156\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1156"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b01156 \u2013 Charter-party bill of lading \u2013 Bagged rice \u2013 Cargo damage and shortage \u2013 Paramount clause and applicable law \u2013 Liability of the sea-carrier. <\/strong>Parties disagree on the interpretation of the Paramount clause. The owner alleges that Hamburg rules should apply because India (country where the cargo was loaded) did not ratify the Brussels Convention of 1924 and that Senegal (country where the cargo was discharged) ratified the Convention of Hamburg of 1978 (its \u00ab corresponding legislation \u00bb). Arbitrators held that the word \u00ab enacted \u00bb does not bear the same meaning that the word \u00ab ratified \u00bb. The word \u00ab enactment \u00bb relates to the procedure by which the Brussels Convention was, or was not, transposed into the national legal system of the country of loading. This is the case of India which transposed into its national legal system (\u00ab Carriage of goods by sea Act \u00bb of 1925) the articles of the Brussels Convention which apply to the case. The owner, as sea carrier, being unable to bring himself within any excepted case is liable for cargo damage and shortage as evidenced at the discharging port.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b01156 \u2013 Charter-party bill of lading \u2013 Bagged rice \u2013 Cargo damage and shortage \u2013 Paramount clause and applicable law \u2013 Liability of the sea-carrier. Parties disagree on the interpretation of the Paramount clause. The owner alleges that Hamburg rules should apply because India (country where the cargo was loaded) did not ratify the<\/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-3440","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\/3440","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=3440"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3440\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3442,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3440\/revisions\/3442"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3440"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3440"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3440"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}