Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951]


  • The claimant signed a contract for the cleaning of her wedding dress without reading, which provided that no liability would be accepted for damage caused to the dress in its entirety
  • She was told that the document said only liability to beads and sequins was excluded
  • The dress was returned with a stain on it


  • Could damages be claimed? Was the exclusion clause effective


  • Claim succeeded, not incorporated


  • Misrepresentation
RELATED CASE  Chappel v Nestle [1960]

Posted in Contract Law Revision Notes.

This page was last updated on 28th April 2014

© 2020 Webstroke Law - Terms and Privacy Policy