{"id":4044,"date":"1991-05-24T13:36:16","date_gmt":"1991-05-24T12:36:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=4044"},"modified":"2016-08-03T13:36:58","modified_gmt":"2016-08-03T12:36:58","slug":"sentence-810","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1991\/05\/24\/sentence-810\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 810"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 810 &#8211; Synacomex, riz en vrac, obligation pr\u00e9senter navire apte au transport, aptitude du navire, refus chargement, rejet implicite notice, rupture charte-partie, recevabilit\u00e9 notice, cale apte \u00e0 charger, r\u00e9silier charte, expert judiciaire, consommation humaine, rouille, refus charger navire, rupture affr\u00e8tement, dommages-int\u00e9r\u00eats, notice valide et recevable, parfaite propret\u00e9 de cale, frais d&rsquo;expertise, Pr\u00e9sentation du navire.\u00a0<\/strong>C\/P Synacomex. Transport de riz en vrac. Obligation du fr\u00e9teur de pr\u00e9senter un navire apte en tous points au transport. Expertises contradictoires. Condition d&rsquo;aptitude non remplie. Refus du chargement. Rejet implicite de la notice. D\u00e9part du navire. Rupture de la charte. Responsabilit\u00e9 de l&rsquo;armateur.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 810 &#8211; Synacomex, riz en vrac, obligation pr\u00e9senter navire apte au transport, aptitude du navire, refus chargement, rejet implicite notice, rupture charte-partie, recevabilit\u00e9 notice, cale apte \u00e0 charger, r\u00e9silier charte, expert judiciaire, consommation humaine, rouille, refus charger navire, rupture affr\u00e8tement, dommages-int\u00e9r\u00eats, notice valide et recevable, parfaite propret\u00e9 de cale, frais d&rsquo;expertise, Pr\u00e9sentation du navire.\u00a0C\/P<\/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":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4044","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe-fr"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044","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=4044"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4045,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4044\/revisions\/4045"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4044"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4044"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4044"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}