CURTIS v CHEMICAL CLEANING & DYEING (1951)

The claimant took a white satin wedding dress to the defendants' shop to be cleaned. The shop assistant asked her to sign a 'receipt', which in fact contained a condition excluding the defendants' liability for any damage however arising. When the claimant asked why she had to sign, the assistant told her that the defendants would not accept liability for damage to the beads and sequins with which the dress was trimmed. The claimant signed. When the dress was returned, it was stained. The defendants argued that the clause excluded their liability.

Held: The defendants could not rely on the exemption clause because of the assistant's innocent misrepresentation, which had misled the claimant as to the extent of the exemption and thereby induced her to sign the receipt.

DENNING LJ: In my opinion any behaviour, by words or conduct, is sufficient to be a misrepresentation if it is such as…