{"id":288780,"date":"2025-12-30T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-12-30T15:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/?p=288780"},"modified":"2025-12-30T15:30:09","modified_gmt":"2025-12-30T14:30:09","slug":"paris-court-of-appeal-pushes-back-against-expansive-annulment-challenges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/2025\/12\/30\/paris-court-of-appeal-pushes-back-against-expansive-annulment-challenges\/","title":{"rendered":"Paris Court of Appeal Pushes Back Against Expansive Annulment Challenges"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading has-text-align-center\">Paris Court of Appeal, June 3, 2025, No. 23\/17836, <em>Wingstop Franchising LLC<\/em><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>THE AUTHOR<\/strong>:<br><strong>Louise Nicot, <\/strong>Former Trainee Lawyer, <strong>Reed Smith<\/strong>\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/company\/paris-baby-arbitration\/posts\/?feedView=all\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Paris Baby Arbitration (&#8220;PBA&#8221;)<\/a> is building a strong community of future arbitration professionals linked to Paris and beyond. Partnering with\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">Daily Jus<\/a>, PBA shares sharp, bilingual analyses and fresh perspectives on the developments shaping the arbitration field, making it more accessible to students and young practitioners worldwide.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tabs atbs-tabs-ffa1c9f5 atbs-tabs-507cfc7d atbs-tabs-aa15e4c5 atbs-tabs-4e71e07f atbs-tabs-960ca043 atbs-tabs-ee00a60a atbs-tabs-cc044763 atbs-tabs-e5227453 atbs-tabs-28ee9d1e atbs-tabs-0f9baf1e atbs-tabs-089ca7bc atbs-tabs-d3e0c47d atbs-tabs-6f4e5034 atbs-tabs-edc4d811 atbs-tabs-9f79343d atbs-tabs-e29c0043 atbs-tabs-3388e41b atbs-tabs-eacf5739 atbs-tabs-1640bf1d atbs-tabs-f4af3a56 atbs-tabs-873c354e atbs-tabs-83bd85a4 atbs-tabs-62375cc4 atbs-tabs-5956dcf8\"><div class=\"tabs-container\"><div class=\"tabs-nav\"><ul class=\"tabs-titles\"><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"1\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">English<\/span><\/li><li class=\"tab-title icon_left\" data-title-tab-id=\"2\" role=\"button\"><span class=\"tab-title-text\">French<\/span><\/li><\/ul><\/div><div class=\"tabs-content\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"1\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-ffa1c9f5\">\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">By a decision dated <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-wingstop-franchising-llc-v-societe-b-wing-s-a-s-and-societe-flight-83-s-a-s-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-17836-tuesday-3rd-june-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">3 June 2025<\/a>, the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal dismissed the application to set aside the arbitral award rendered under the arbitration rules of the <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration<\/a>) (LCIA Arbitration Case No. 215285), in the dispute between the French companies S.A.S. B.Wing and S.A.S. Flight 83 (\u201c<strong>the Claimants<\/strong>\u201d) and the U.S. company Wingstop Franchising LLC (\u201c<strong>the Respondent<\/strong>\u201d).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this case, the dispute concerned the performance of a franchise agreement (\u201c<strong>the Agreement<\/strong>\u201d) entered into in 2017 between the three companies, which operate in the fast-food sector. Under the Agreement, the Respondent granted the Claimants exclusive rights to operate its brand in France, in return for the opening of 75 restaurants over a 12-year period. As the Claimants only opened one restaurant and thus failed to meet the agreed timeline, the Respondent proposed an amendment to the Agreement, which was rejected by the Claimants, before unilaterally terminating the territorial exclusivity in February 2021. After rejecting several proposed locations outside the contractually agreed territory, the Respondent initiated arbitration proceedings in 2021, which resulted in an award unfavorable to the Claimants rendered on <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-wingstop-franchising-llc-v-societe-b-wing-s-a-s-and-societe-flight-83-s-a-s-final-award-thursday-31st-october-2024#decision_85731?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D23%2F17836%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">27 September 2023<\/a>. The Claimants then filed for annulment of the award before the Paris Court of Appeal on 27 October 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In their first ground for annulment, based on Article 1520, paragraph 1 of the French Code of Civil Procedure (\u201c<strong>the Code<\/strong>\u201d), the Claimants argued that the arbitral tribunal lacked jurisdiction, on the basis that the Respondent had forfeited its right to arbitration by transferring it to a third party. The Court dismissed this argument, holding that the possible loss of the right to arbitrate due to a transfer of rights concerns the admissibility of the claims submitted to arbitration, not the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In their second ground, based on Article 1520, paragraph 3 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, the Claimants alleged that the sole arbitrator failed to carry out his mandate by not ruling on the legal consequences of the Respondent\u2019s contractual breaches, despite the Claimants having expressly raised these issues in their counterclaims. The Court rejected this ground, noting that such a failure does not justify annulment of the award, as an omission to rule is not one of the grounds for annulment under the Code.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In their third and final ground, based on Article 1520, paragraph 5 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, the Claimants alleged that the recognition or enforcement of the award would violate international public policy, as the arbitrator had, in their view, breached Article L. 330-3 of the French Commercial Code by recognizing the Respondent\u2019s right to reject proposed sites not specified in the Agreement. The Court rejected this ground, finding that the Claimants failed to demonstrate that the allegedly missing information, in particular, regarding the broader site rejection rights, fell within the scope of Article L. 330-3 of the French Commercial Code, or that the award violated international public policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Court dismissed the application to set aside the award, ordered the claimants jointly and severally to pay the costs, and the respondent \u20ac50,000 pursuant to Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In conclusion, the judgment reaffirms the distinction between the concepts of admissibility and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal, and specifies that an omission to rule (<em>infra petita<\/em>) constitutes a breach only if a party was prevented from presenting its claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\">T<em>his article was originally published in the Biberon newsletter on<em> Wednesday November 5, 2025,<\/em> with thanks to Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/erPdHfsB\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Read It<\/strong> <strong>Here<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Louise Nicot<\/strong> is an arbitration trainee based in Paris, with experience in leading arbitration boutiques and international law firms. Fluent in French, English, German and Italian, she holds two LL.M. degrees and two Master\u2019s degrees in business law and international arbitration from Humboldt University of Berlin, the University of Amsterdam and Universit\u00e9 Paris-Panth\u00e9on-Assas. Passionate about promoting arbitration, she has contributed to Le Biberon since 2022 and joined the podcast team of Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA) in September 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>The&nbsp;views&nbsp;and opinions expressed by authors are theirs and do not necessarily reflect those of their organizations, employers, or Daily Jus, Jus Mundi, or Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-atbs-tab\"><div class=\"single-tab\" data-tab-id=\"2\" data-tab-parent-id=\"atbs-tabs-ffa1c9f5\">\n<h1 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>La Cour d\u2019appel de Paris freine les recours en annulation excessifs<\/strong><\/h1>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:10px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong><a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-wingstop-franchising-llc-v-societe-b-wing-s-a-s-and-societe-flight-83-s-a-s-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-17836-tuesday-3rd-june-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">Cour d\u2019appel de Paris, 3 juin 2025, n\u00b0 23\/17836, <em>Wingstop v. B.Wing and Flight 83<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Par une <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/fr-wingstop-franchising-llc-v-societe-b-wing-s-a-s-and-societe-flight-83-s-a-s-arret-de-la-cour-d-appel-de-paris-pole-5-chambre-16-23-17836-tuesday-3rd-june-2025\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">d\u00e9cision du 3 juin 2025<\/a>, la chambre commerciale internationale de la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris a rejet\u00e9 le recours en annulation form\u00e9 contre la sentence rendue sous l\u2019\u00e9gide du r\u00e8glement d\u2019arbitrage de la <a href=\"https:\/\/jusconnect.com\/en\/d\/profile\/institution\/en-lcia-london-court-of-international-arbitration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">LCIA (London Court of International Arbitration<\/a>) (LCIA Arbitration Case No. 215285), dans le litige opposant les soci\u00e9t\u00e9s fran\u00e7aises S.A.S. B.Wing et S.A.S. Flight 83 (\u00ab\u00a0<strong>les demanderesses<\/strong>\u00a0\u00bb), \u00e0 la soci\u00e9t\u00e9 am\u00e9ricaine Wingstop Franchising LLC (\u00ab\u00a0<strong>la d\u00e9fenderesse<\/strong>\u00a0\u00bb).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En l\u2019esp\u00e8ce, le diff\u00e9rend portait sur l\u2019ex\u00e9cution d\u2019un contrat de franchise (\u00ab\u00a0<strong>le contrat<\/strong>\u00a0\u00bb) conclu en 2017 entre les trois soci\u00e9t\u00e9s, sp\u00e9cialis\u00e9es dans la restauration rapide. La d\u00e9fenderesse au recours avait, par ce contrat, accord\u00e9 aux demanderesses un droit exclusif d\u2019exploitation de son enseigne en France, sous r\u00e9serve de l\u2019ouverture de 75 restaurants sur 12 ans. Faute de respect du calendrier par les demanderesses, qui n\u2019ont ouvert qu\u2019un seul restaurant, la d\u00e9fenderesse a d\u2019abord propos\u00e9 une r\u00e9vision du contrat, proposition refus\u00e9e par les demanderesses, avant de mettre fin \u00e0 l\u2019exclusivit\u00e9 territoriale en f\u00e9vrier 2021. Apr\u00e8s avoir refus\u00e9 plusieurs propositions d\u2019implantation hors de la r\u00e9gion pr\u00e9vue par le contrat, la d\u00e9fenderesse a engag\u00e9 une proc\u00e9dure d\u2019arbitrage en 2021, aboutissant \u00e0 une sentence d\u00e9favorable aux demanderesses rendue le <a href=\"https:\/\/jusmundi.com\/en\/document\/decision\/en-wingstop-franchising-llc-v-societe-b-wing-s-a-s-and-societe-flight-83-s-a-s-final-award-thursday-31st-october-2024#decision_85731?su=%2Fen%2Fsearch%3Fquery%3D23%2F17836%26lang%3Den\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"\">27 septembre 2023<\/a>, qui ont saisi la Cour d\u2019appel de Paris d\u2019un recours en annulation le 27 octobre 2023.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un premier moyen tir\u00e9 de l\u2019incomp\u00e9tence du tribunal fond\u00e9 sur l\u2019article 1520, alin\u00e9a 1er du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, les demanderesses font grief au tribunal arbitral de s\u2019\u00eatre reconnu comp\u00e9tent alors que la d\u00e9fenderesse aurait perdu son droit de recourir \u00e0 l\u2019arbitrage apr\u00e8s l\u2019avoir transf\u00e9r\u00e9 \u00e0 un tiers. La Cour rejette ce moyen au motif que l\u2019\u00e9ventuelle perte du droit d\u2019agir \u00e0 raison d\u2019un transfert de droits rel\u00e8ve de la recevabilit\u00e9 des demandes soumises \u00e0 la juridiction arbitrale, et non d\u2019une question de comp\u00e9tence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un second moyen tir\u00e9 tir\u00e9 du non-respect de sa mission par le tribunal arbitral fond\u00e9 sur l\u2019article 1520, alin\u00e9a 3 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, les demanderesses reprochent \u00e0 l\u2019arbitre unique de ne pas avoir statu\u00e9 sur les cons\u00e9quences juridiques des manquements contractuels de la d\u00e9fenderesse, malgr\u00e9 leurs demandes reconventionnelles expresses en ce sens. La Cour rejette le bien fond\u00e9 de ce moyen et rappelle qu\u2019un tel manquement ne saurait justifier l\u2019annulation de la sentence, l\u2019omission de statuer ne constituant pas un cas d\u2019ouverture du recours en annulation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Dans un troisi\u00e8me et dernier moyen tir\u00e9 de la contrari\u00e9t\u00e9 de la reconnaissance ou de l\u2019ex\u00e9cution de la sentence \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public international fond\u00e9 sur l\u2019article 1520, alin\u00e9a 5 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile, les demanderesses reprochent \u00e0 l\u2019arbitre d\u2019avoir viol\u00e9 l\u2019article L. 330-3 du Code de commerce en reconnaissant \u00e0 la d\u00e9fenderesse le droit de refuser des sites non pr\u00e9vus par le contrat. La Cour rejette ce moyen, estimant que les demanderesses ne prouvent pas que les informations qu\u2019elles disent ne pas avoir re\u00e7ues, notamment sur le droit de refus \u00e9largi des sites, rel\u00e8vent de l\u2019article L. 330-3 du Code de commerce, ni en quoi la sentence porterait atteinte \u00e0 l\u2019ordre public international.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">La Cour rejette le recours en annulation, condamne in solidum les demanderesses aux d\u00e9pens ainsi qu\u2019\u00e0 payer \u00e0 la d\u00e9fenderesse la somme de 50 000 euros en application de l\u2019article 700 du Code de proc\u00e9dure civile.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">En conclusion, l\u2019arr\u00eat rappelle les contours de la distinction entre les notions de recevabilit\u00e9 et de comp\u00e9tence de l\u2019arbitre, et pr\u00e9cise que l\u2019omission de statuer (<em>infra petita<\/em>) ne constitue un manquement que si une partie a \u00e9t\u00e9 emp\u00each\u00e9e de pr\u00e9senter ses pr\u00e9tentions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"has-text-align-center wp-block-paragraph\"><em><em>Cet article a \u00e9t\u00e9 initialement publi\u00e9 dans la newsletter Biberon le mercredi 5 novembre, 2025, avec le soutien de Paris Baby Arbitration, Jus Mundi &amp; Jus Connect<\/em><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-buttons is-content-justification-center is-layout-flex wp-container-core-buttons-is-layout-fe48e5de wp-block-buttons-is-layout-flex\">\n<div class=\"wp-block-button\"><a class=\"wp-block-button__link wp-element-button\" href=\"https:\/\/lnkd.in\/eCEPU3in\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\"><strong>Lire dans le Biberon<\/strong><\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<div style=\"height:30px\" aria-hidden=\"true\" class=\"wp-block-spacer\"><\/div>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>ABOUT THE AUTHOR<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Louise Nicot<\/strong> is an arbitration trainee based in Paris, with experience in leading arbitration boutiques and international law firms. Fluent in French, English, German and Italian, she holds two LL.M. degrees and two Master\u2019s degrees in business law and international arbitration from Humboldt University of Berlin, the University of Amsterdam and Universit\u00e9 Paris-Panth\u00e9on-Assas. Passionate about promoting arbitration, she has contributed to Le Biberon since 2022 and joined the podcast team of Paris Baby Arbitration (PBA) in September 2024.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">*<em><em>Les points de vue et les opinions exprim\u00e9s par les auteurs sont les leurs et ne refl\u00e8tent pas n\u00e9cessairement ceux de leurs organisations, de leurs employeurs ou de Daily Jus, Jus Mundi ou Jus Connect.<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Paris Court of Appeal confirms that infra petita claims do not justify annulment absent a denial of due process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":288784,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"subtitle":"","format":"standard","video":"","gallery":"","source_name":"","source_url":"","via_name":"","via_url":"","override_template":"0","override":[{"template":"custom","single_blog_custom":"274736","parallax":"1","fullscreen":"1","layout":"right-sidebar","sidebar":"author","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"hide","share_float_style":"share-monocrhome","show_share_counter":"0","show_view_counter":"0","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"0","show_post_author_image":"0","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"0","show_post_reading_time":"0","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"0","show_prev_next_post":"0","show_popup_post":"0","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"0","show_post_related":"0","show_inline_post_related":"0"}],"override_image_size":"0","image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post":"0","trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post":"0","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","sponsored_post_name":"","sponsored_post_url":"","sponsored_post_logo_enable":"0","sponsored_post_logo":"","sponsored_post_desc":"","disable_ad":"0"},"jnews_primary_category":{"id":"179","hide":""},"jnews_social_meta":{"fb_title":"Paris Court of Appeal Pushes Back Against Expansive Annulment Challenges","fb_description":"The Paris Court of Appeal confirms that infra petita claims do not justify annulment absent a denial of due process.","fb_image":"288785","twitter_title":"Paris Court of Appeal Pushes Back Against Expansive Annulment Challenges","twitter_description":"The Paris Court of Appeal confirms that infra petita claims do not justify annulment absent a denial of due process.","twitter_image":"288785"},"jnews_review":[],"enable_review":"0","type":"percentage","name":"","summary":"","brand":"","sku":"","good":[{"good_text":""}],"bad":[{"bad_text":""}],"score_override":"0","override_value":"","rating":[{"rating_text":"","rating_number":"10"}],"price":[{"shop":"","price":"","link":"","icon":""}],"jnews_override_counter":{"override_view_counter":"0","view_counter_number":"0","override_share_counter":"0","share_counter_number":"0","override_like_counter":"0","like_counter_number":"0","override_dislike_counter":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[205,207,167,179,188,276,161,247],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-288780","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-arbitration","category-commercial-arbitration","category-europe","category-france","category-legal-insights","category-paris-baby-arbitration-pba","category-world","category-worldwide-perspectives"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288780","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=288780"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288780\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":288786,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/288780\/revisions\/288786"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/288784"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=288780"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=288780"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=288780"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/dailyjus.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=288780"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}