Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805

Material Facts:

The claimant, Curtis, took her wedding dress to be cleaned by the defendants, Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing. The claimant was asked to sign a form which, according to the oral explanation of an assistant, excluded the company from liability for damages caused to any beading and sequins on garments. When the claimant later returned for her dress, the defendant had damaged it. In response to a suit for damages from Curtis, the defendants claimed that Curtis had signed a form which excluded the company from liability for all damages to garments, and not just damages to the beading and sequins as Curtis was told.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the assistant’s response amounted to misrepresentation.

2. Whether the exclusion of liability clause was binding upon the claimant.

Holding:

1. The assistance response amounted to misrepresentation.

2. The exclusion of liability clause was not binding on the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi:

That the assistant misrepresented the effect of the exclusion clause to the plaintiff, and this cannot be said to be binding on the plaintiff. Thus, the exclusion clause was not binding on the plaintiff because of the misrepresentation.