{"id":3489,"date":"2007-07-27T14:10:48","date_gmt":"2007-07-27T13:10:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3489"},"modified":"2016-06-16T14:11:30","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T13:11:30","slug":"award-1141","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2007\/07\/27\/award-1141\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1141"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b01141 \u2013 C-P bill of lading \u2013 Bagged rice \u2013 Shortage and damage \u2013 Time-charterer as carrier \u2013 Liability in tort of the head owner (No). <\/strong>Cargo insurers having compensated the receiver for cargo damage and shortage cannot base their claim against the owner on liability in tort. It is mere common sense to look after the responsibility of the \u201cpenitus extraneus\u201d only, inasmuch as the concerned third party has the ground for a contractual claim. Incidentally, should a title to sue exists, the contractual fault still remains to be established. London arbitrators are only those having jurisdiction to clear up the time c-p.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b01141 \u2013 C-P bill of lading \u2013 Bagged rice \u2013 Shortage and damage \u2013 Time-charterer as carrier \u2013 Liability in tort of the head owner (No). Cargo insurers having compensated the receiver for cargo damage and shortage cannot base their claim against the owner on liability in tort. It is mere common sense to<\/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-3489","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\/3489","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=3489"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3489\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3490,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3489\/revisions\/3490"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}