Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co

[1951] 1 KB 805

Case summary last updated at 01/01/2020 18:57 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co

 P took a dress to be cleaned by CCD, who asked him to sign a receipt that exempted CCD from liability for any damage to the dress caused by CCD. P only signed after CCD assured him that the clause only related to the beads and sequins but not to the dress itself. When the dress was badly stained, P sued and CA prevented CCD from relying on the exemption clause. 

Denning LJ: What is sufficient misrepresentation to negate the signature agreeing to the clause? “any behaviour, by words or by conduct…if it is such as to mislead the other party about the existence or extent of the exemption”. Anything that creates a false impression, whether intentionally or innocently, is enough. 

Curtis v Chemical Cleaning Co crops up in following areas of law