In a case that arose out of the insolvency of a tour operator through which a school had booked a package tour for a group of students, the school group claimed a full refund under the Association of British Travel Agents (ABTA) scheme of protection; however, ABTA baulked citing small print in the ABTA handbook that disavowed liability in instance in which the tour operator becomes insolvent. ABTA refused to make good on its pledge and the school group sued ABTA on the basis of gap, The school group won. [A] What would have been the effect on case outcome in the event that: [1] It was established in fact that the school group coordinator who bought the package tour for the students never saw the small print in the handbook and, indeed, did not even know of the handbook's existence [2] The director of the insolvent tour group insisted, at the time of the purchase of the package tour, that the ABTA pledge was an unconditional guarantee and the group coordinator had substantial knowledge of the travel industry as, prior to taking up employment at the school, he had been a travel agent for ten years [B] What legal advice after the case would you have imparted to ABTA about its pledge and handbook? Explain