{"id":6595,"date":"2020-04-30T11:40:43","date_gmt":"2020-04-30T10:40:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=6595"},"modified":"2021-03-26T18:57:00","modified_gmt":"2021-03-26T17:57:00","slug":"award-1250","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2020\/04\/30\/award-1250\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1250"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1250 \u2013 Second degree &#8211; Bare boat charter with put option \u2013 Price clause \u2013 Interpretation or misinterpretation ? \u2013 Strict interpretation.\u2028<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Further to a judicial liquidation, company A had purchased two ferry-type ships, a purchase ratified by the Commercial Court of Paris, which imposed non-transferability of the ships for five years. As it was unable to operate them directly due to an administrative decision, A had chartered them on a bare boat basis to company B. After 5 years, A had the option of selling to B, which undertook to purchase them, each single-ship company, at an agreed price less the lease payments made since chartering. In the end, for tax reasons B requested that the purchase should concern the ships themselves rather than the companies. A memorandum of understanding was drawn up with a clause that included the price terms of the previous plan apart from the deduction of prior lease payments, which<\/p>\n<p>became <em>\u00ab\u00a0&#8230;less any amount due by each company in respect of bare boat charter agreements&#8230;<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0\u2028At the end of the 5-year period, A exercised its option, B paid the agreed price but demanded reimbursement of the lease payments, contending in substance that the expression \u00ab\u00a0<em>due by<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb was erroneous and should read \u00ab\u00a0<em>due to<\/em>\u00a0\u00bb in reference to the common intention of the parties, whereas A interpreted the agreement literally.<\/p>\n<p>The Arbitral Tribunal found that the disputed clause was clear and its wording objectively comprehensible. Besides the fact that an entire<\/p>\n<p>agreement ruled out any previous statements and negotiations, the contract documents prepared by A&rsquo;s counsel had been in the possession of B and its counsel for three days, and even though it had discussed numerous points, it did not challenge the new version of the price clause. B thus failed to reverse the presumption of the parties&rsquo; common intention and all its claims and submissions were dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1250 \u2013 Second degree &#8211; Bare boat charter with put option \u2013 Price clause \u2013 Interpretation or misinterpretation ? \u2013 Strict interpretation.\u2028 Further to a judicial liquidation, company A had purchased two ferry-type ships, a purchase ratified by the Commercial Court of Paris, which imposed non-transferability of the ships for five years. As it<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"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-6595","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\/6595","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\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6595"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6595\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6707,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6595\/revisions\/6707"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6595"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6595"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6595"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}