{"id":3504,"date":"2007-02-19T14:24:34","date_gmt":"2007-02-19T13:24:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3504"},"modified":"2016-06-16T14:25:48","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T13:25:48","slug":"award-1136","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2007\/02\/19\/award-1136\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1136"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b01136 \u2013 B\/L used with a Gencon c-p \u2013 Legal action before a Tribunal lacking jurisdiction interrupts the time bar. Consignee a subsidiary of the charterer \u2013 Carrier not liable for damages to steel products cargo. <\/strong>The action brought before a US Tribunal lacking jurisdiction interrupts the time bar. When the consignee of the cargo is a subsidiary of the charterer which signed the c-p, the consignee is not allowed to claim as third party holder of the bill of lading which is not the only relevant contract of carriage, it must take into account c-p terms, especially discharging terms. When damages are ascertained at the premises of the clients of the consignee, it has to show that damages are attributable to the maritime carrier.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b01136 \u2013 B\/L used with a Gencon c-p \u2013 Legal action before a Tribunal lacking jurisdiction interrupts the time bar. Consignee a subsidiary of the charterer \u2013 Carrier not liable for damages to steel products cargo. The action brought before a US Tribunal lacking jurisdiction interrupts the time bar. When the consignee of 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-3504","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\/3504","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=3504"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3504\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3505,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3504\/revisions\/3505"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3504"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3504"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3504"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}