Why was the dry cleaning company held to be liable in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The dry cleaning company was held liable in Curtis v Chemical Cleaning & Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805 because the purpose of the exemption clause in the contract was misrepresented by the shop assistant. The customer had specifically asked if the company would be liable in case of damage to the fur coat, and the shop assistant had falsely assured him that the company would take full responsibility. Therefore, the exemption clause was deemed to be ineffective in limiting the liability of the dry cleaning company.

Why Was the Dry Cleaning Company Held to Be Liable