{"id":4181,"date":"1990-03-30T08:48:04","date_gmt":"1990-03-30T07:48:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=4181"},"modified":"2016-08-11T08:49:19","modified_gmt":"2016-08-11T07:49:19","slug":"sentence-766","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1990\/03\/30\/sentence-766\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 766"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 766 &#8211; Synacomex, farine en sacs, incendie, mouille, assureurs subrog\u00e9s, recevabilit\u00e9 demande, due diligence, aptitude navire , abandon voyage, dommages, int\u00e9r\u00eats vendeur, avaries communes, sinistre, minimiser dommage, droit \u00e0 agir, int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 agir, connaissements, responsabilit\u00e9, incendie navire,, d\u00e9fauts, comp\u00e9tence \u00e9tat-major, police \u00a0\u00bb int\u00e9r\u00eats du vendeur \u00ab\u00a0. <\/strong>C\/P Synacomex. Cargaison de farine en sacs. Incendie \u00e0 bord et mouille de la marchandise par eau d&rsquo;extinction et inondation d&rsquo;une cale. Police \u00ab\u00a0Int\u00e9r\u00eats du vendeur\u00a0\u00bb. Recours des assureurs subrog\u00e9s. 1\/ Recevabilit\u00e9 de la demande des assureurs (oui) &#8211; 2\/ Due diligence de l&rsquo;armateur-fr\u00e9teur pour rendre le navire apte \u00e0 tous \u00e9gards \u00e0 effectuer le voyage (non) &#8211; Exon\u00e9ration de sa responsabilit\u00e9 pour l&rsquo;incendie en mer \u00e0 concurrence de la moiti\u00e9.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 766 &#8211; Synacomex, farine en sacs, incendie, mouille, assureurs subrog\u00e9s, recevabilit\u00e9 demande, due diligence, aptitude navire , abandon voyage, dommages, int\u00e9r\u00eats vendeur, avaries communes, sinistre, minimiser dommage, droit \u00e0 agir, int\u00e9r\u00eat \u00e0 agir, connaissements, responsabilit\u00e9, incendie navire,, d\u00e9fauts, comp\u00e9tence \u00e9tat-major, police \u00a0\u00bb int\u00e9r\u00eats du vendeur \u00ab\u00a0. C\/P Synacomex. Cargaison de farine en sacs. Incendie<\/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-4181","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\/4181","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=4181"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4181\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4182,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4181\/revisions\/4182"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4181"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4181"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4181"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}