Legal Case Summary
Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805
Affirms that when a party misrepresents the significance of a term, it ceases to be contractually binding
Facts
The claimant, Curtis, took her wedding dress to be cleaned by a professional laundry service, the defendants, the Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Company. Upon purchasing their services, the defendants asked the claimant to sign a form, and she asked the service assistant what the consequences of signing would be. The assistant replied that the form merely included an exclusion of liability clause for any damage they may cause to any beading and sequins on garments, however in actuality the exclusion of liability clause pertained to all possible damage that may befall a garment whilst being cleaned. When the claimant returned to pick up her dress, it had been damaged by the defendants and she thus brought a claim for damages against them. In response, the defendants submitted that she had no grounds for a claim due to the exclusion of liability clause.
Issue
Whether the exclusion of liability clause was binding upon the claimant given that the service assistant had misrepresented its consequence.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal found for the claimant, viewing that whilst a party is typically bound by all the contents of a signed written contract, even where they had not properly read the contract, a clause ought not be deemed legally enforceable where the drafting party misrepresents the effect of a clause to the other party. Thus, the exemption of liability clause was not deemed properly incorporated into the contract and the claimant was awarded damages.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805 is a Court of Appeal authority that continues to represent good law. The principle that a misrepresentation as to the effect of a contractual term can prevent that term from being incorporated into the contract remains well established and is regularly cited in contract law. The general rule that a party is bound by a signed document (from L’Estrange v Graucob [1934] 2 KB 394) and the Curtis exception to it have not been displaced by subsequent legislation or case law. Students should note, however, that exclusion clauses in consumer contracts are now also subject to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which imposes additional statutory controls (including a fairness test and requirements of transparency and prominence) that did not exist at the time of this case. In a modern consumer context, an exclusion clause of this kind could also be challenged under that Act, independently of the misrepresentation point decided in Curtis. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 similarly applies in relevant non-consumer business contexts. The misrepresentation principle from Curtis itself, however, remains unaffected by these later developments.
