{"id":4976,"date":"1983-06-22T10:49:53","date_gmt":"1983-06-22T09:49:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=4976"},"modified":"2016-08-24T11:00:12","modified_gmt":"2016-08-24T10:00:12","slug":"sentence-498","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/1983\/06\/22\/sentence-498\/","title":{"rendered":"Sentence 498"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Sentence 498 &#8211; Synacomex,- weather working days &#8211; houle end\u00e9mique. <\/strong>C\/P au voyage Synacomex avec divers ports d&rsquo;Afrique occidentale \u00e0 l&rsquo;option de l&rsquo;affr\u00e9teur pour un transport de riz en sacs &#8211; Nomination de Nouakchott (Mauritanie) comme port destinataire &#8211; Litige portant principalement sur le compte des surestaries encourues au d\u00e9chargement pour un navire arriv\u00e9 le 13 F\u00e9vrier 1981, le d\u00e9chargement ne s&rsquo;\u00e9tant achev\u00e9 que le 20 Avril 1981 en raison d&rsquo;interruptions dues au mauvais temps &#8211; Clause \u00ab\u00a0weather working day\u00a0\u00bb &#8211; Enqu\u00eate sur place de l&rsquo;arbitre unique ayant permis de v\u00e9rifier 1) que Nouakchott \u00e9tait un mouillage s\u00fbr &#8211; 2) que les mentions du \u00ab\u00a0statement of facts\u00a0\u00bb \u00e9taient exactes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Sentence 498 &#8211; Synacomex,- weather working days &#8211; houle end\u00e9mique. C\/P au voyage Synacomex avec divers ports d&rsquo;Afrique occidentale \u00e0 l&rsquo;option de l&rsquo;affr\u00e9teur pour un transport de riz en sacs &#8211; Nomination de Nouakchott (Mauritanie) comme port destinataire &#8211; Litige portant principalement sur le compte des surestaries encourues au d\u00e9chargement pour un navire arriv\u00e9 le<\/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-4976","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\/4976","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=4976"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4977,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4976\/revisions\/4977"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}