In the Case of Jackson V Swift Travel Ltd, Jackson

Multiple Choice

In the case of Jackson v Swift Travel Ltd, Jackson purchased a coach ticket to travel from Cardiff to Gatwick Airport. The ticket contained conditions stating that Swift Travel would be liable for the cost of the airfare if the client failed to reach the airport on time but excluded Swift Travel from such liability for 'factors out of their control'. In the leading judgment of the Court of Appeal, Morgan LJ stated: 'It was clear to the client upon purchasing the ticket that the company would not be liable for the cost of the airfare if the delay in arriving at the airport was due to factors that could not be reasonably foreseen and were out of the control of the coach company. In this case, a terrorist attack in central London could neither have been reasonably foreseen nor be within the control of the company. This is not to say that there may not be circumstances that are perfectly foreseeable and over which the company can be deemed to have control.'
Which of the following are reasonable perceptions of Morgan LJ's decision (select all that apply) ?

A) Judge 1: 'Morgan LJ clearly established, in Jackson v Swift Travel Ltd, that only something so completely unlikely as a terrorist attack would exempt the company from liability.'
B) Judge 2: 'In Jackson v Swift Travel Ltd, Morgan LJ did not give the company licence to deny all liability; indeed, the words "reasonably foreseeable" demonstrate that the exemption from liability is clearly limited to circumstances outside the control of the company. I think the present case falls within circumstances which are, in Morgan LJ's words, "perfectly foreseeable".'
C) Judge 3: 'It is clear from the words used by Morgan LJ in Jackson v Swift Travel Ltd that the factors which could exempt from liability must not be reasonably foreseeable and must be out of control of the company.'
D) Judge 4: 'It is clear that Morgan LJ did not mean to exempt the company only in such extreme circumstances as a terrorist attack. Indeed, he made it clear that there will be circumstances that "the company can be deemed to have control over". The key to the matter is, therefore, determining what is meant by the phrase "out of control of the company".'