{"id":3466,"date":"2007-11-07T10:10:45","date_gmt":"2007-11-07T09:10:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3466"},"modified":"2016-06-16T10:11:44","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T09:11:44","slug":"award-1148","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2007\/11\/07\/award-1148\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1148"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b01148 &#8211; Voyage charter \u2013 Identity of one party \u2013 Non-performance. <\/strong>A valid contract exists when chartering negotiations were confirmed by email, although the c-p was not drafted. The operator which negotiated and subsequently denied being a party to the contract when no vessel was nominated, is acting as the disponent owner, responsible for the consequences of the non-performance. The prejudice borne by the charterer is based on the freight differential for the substitute vessel, but it should be reduced because of the partial failure of the charterer to mitigate damages.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b01148 &#8211; Voyage charter \u2013 Identity of one party \u2013 Non-performance. A valid contract exists when chartering negotiations were confirmed by email, although the c-p was not drafted. The operator which negotiated and subsequently denied being a party to the contract when no vessel was nominated, is acting as the disponent owner, responsible for<\/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,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3466","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\/3466","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=3466"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3466\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3467,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3466\/revisions\/3467"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}