ABSTRACT
Facts: Mrs Curtis took a white satin wedding dress trimmed in beads and sequins to a dry cleaner for cleaning. The shop assistant asked her to sign a ‘receipt’. When she asked what the signifi cance of the document was, the assistant replied that it excluded liability for damage by or to the beads and sequins. Mrs Curtis signed the document and left the dress with the assistant. The document actually contained a general exclusion clause, excluding all liability for damages howsoever caused. When Mrs Curtis returned for the dress she discovered that it was badly stained. She was awarded damages by the county court judge, who held that the defendants had been guilty of negligence and were not protected by their exclusion clause because of the misrepresentation as to its character.
