{"id":3457,"date":"2008-03-20T09:56:44","date_gmt":"2008-03-20T08:56:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3457"},"modified":"2016-06-16T09:57:49","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T08:57:49","slug":"award-1151","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2008\/03\/20\/award-1151\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1151"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b01151 \u2013 Second degree \u2013 Unsigned \u00ab Synacomex \u00bb c-p \u2013 Jurisdiction \u2013 Validity of the notice of readiness (NOR) \u2013 Refusal to discharge against a letter of indemnity (LOI). <\/strong>Although the c-p was unsigned, the contract having been executed, its validity remained unaltered as well as its arbitration clause giving jurisdiction to the CAMP. Upon arrival on the roads and tendering of the NOR, the berthing was not scheduled before results from samples testing were obtained, therefore the berth was not \u00ab at the disposal of the vessel \u00bb. If it was not because of a reason due to the owner that the berthing was prevented, the nautical and meteorological risks have not to be borne several times by the vessel. Time stopped counting for time lost as the Master refused to discharge\u00a0against a LOI which was presented to him in accordance with c-p terms.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b01151 \u2013 Second degree \u2013 Unsigned \u00ab Synacomex \u00bb c-p \u2013 Jurisdiction \u2013 Validity of the notice of readiness (NOR) \u2013 Refusal to discharge against a letter of indemnity (LOI). Although the c-p was unsigned, the contract having been executed, its validity remained unaltered as well as its arbitration clause giving jurisdiction to 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-3457","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\/3457","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=3457"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3457\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3458,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3457\/revisions\/3458"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3457"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3457"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3457"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}