e-lawresources
Providing resources for studying law
 
Custom Search
   Home      Curtis v Chemical Cleaning
 
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning [1951] 1 KB 805 Court of Appeal

The claimant took her wedding dress to the cleaners. She was asked to sign a form. She asked the assistant what she was signing and the assistant told her that it excluded liability for any damage to the beads. The form in fact contained a clause excluding all liability for any damage howsoever caused. The dress was returned badly stained.

Held:

The assistant had misrepresented the effect of the clause and therefore could not rely on the clause in the form even though the claimant had signed it.
 
Back to lecture outline on unfair terms in Contract Law