{"id":5603,"date":"2016-06-02T13:02:50","date_gmt":"2016-06-02T12:02:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=5603"},"modified":"2017-04-11T13:03:52","modified_gmt":"2017-04-11T12:03:52","slug":"award-1230","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2016\/06\/02\/award-1230\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1230"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1230 &#8211; Shipbuilding contract \u2013 Sale of a large pleasure boat \u2013 Work uncompleted \u2013 Non delivery following seller\u2019s liquidation \u2013 Assessment of price as is and balance due. <\/strong>A 50 meters yacht whose building was subcontracted to an Italian shipyard was not delivered to the owner due to the Seller\u2019s compulsory liquidation. The main claim from the Official Receiver concerned the balance due by the owner to the seller when construction ceased at the shipyard.<\/p>\n<p>With the parties\u2019 agreement, the contract providing an expert intervention in case of dispute during its execution, the latter was committed to assess the yacht status of work. Founding upon its own appraisement the Arbitral Tribunal slightly modified the figure expressed in percentage resulting from the expert\u2019s report and compared it with the percentage of Owner\u2019s payments with regard to the contractual price. After taking into account some credits, the owner was condemned to pay the balance resulting from, increased by legal interest rate rather than, as per contract, the EURIBOR rate, as the claimed amount had not been invoiced.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1230 &#8211; Shipbuilding contract \u2013 Sale of a large pleasure boat \u2013 Work uncompleted \u2013 Non delivery following seller\u2019s liquidation \u2013 Assessment of price as is and balance due. A 50 meters yacht whose building was subcontracted to an Italian shipyard was not delivered to the owner due to the Seller\u2019s compulsory liquidation. 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-5603","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\/5603","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=5603"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5604,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5603\/revisions\/5604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}