{"id":3579,"date":"2005-03-28T10:44:36","date_gmt":"2005-03-28T09:44:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3579"},"modified":"2016-06-17T10:45:12","modified_gmt":"2016-06-17T09:45:12","slug":"award-1111","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2005\/03\/28\/award-1111\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1111"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award N\u00b0 1111 &#8211; Syncomex c-p \u2013 Safe port\/berth. <\/strong>During bad weather periods, port authorities must provide all necessary resources to the vessel in order that the port\/berth remain safe, on the other hand, the Master has a continuing obligation of diligence in the operation of the vessel. Because not enough lines were available on board to double up and because the vessel did not leave the berth as planned when nothing prevented her to do so, the owner will bear the responsibility for damages resulting from the bad weather. The sole arbitrator did not accept the charterer\u2019s argument by which the 1924 Brussels Convention incorporated into the c-p should have rendered null and void the \u201csafe port\u201d clause. The Convention did not apply to the relationship between the owner and the charterer which remains governed by the c-p.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award N\u00b0 1111 &#8211; Syncomex c-p \u2013 Safe port\/berth. During bad weather periods, port authorities must provide all necessary resources to the vessel in order that the port\/berth remain safe, on the other hand, the Master has a continuing obligation of diligence in the operation of the vessel. Because not enough lines were available on<\/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-3579","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\/3579","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=3579"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3579\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3580,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3579\/revisions\/3580"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3579"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3579"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3579"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}