Vintel Cameras Limited ("VCL") manufactures and sells its own specialist photography equipment. VCL's website contains a prominent set of standard Terms and Conditions, which include the following clause 7.1: "Vintel Cameras Limited accepts no liability for any loss or damage caused by or as a result of its products." In recent months, VCL has received two complaints from customers as follows: Alessandro, a professional wedding photographer, visited VCL's store on Pinter Street and purchased a high-end camera called the XemoVision 500, which is designed for low light. When using the XemoVision at a wedding for the first time, Alessandro discovered that its performance in low light was poor and as a result he has been forced to refund the fee he had charged the happy couple for photographing their wedding. VCL has offered to refund the camera, but Alessandro wants VCL to compensate him for the loss of profit he has suffered. Bilal, a hobbyist birdwatcher, purchased a long-range lens from VCL's website. As a result of VCL failing to package the lens appropriately, it was damaged in transit, and Bilal cut his hand on broken glass when removing the lens from the box. VCL has sent a replacement lens, but Bilal believes he should receive compensation for his injury. In each case, with reference to legal authority, advise VCL on any prima facie liability that it might have for the loss suffered by the customer, and on the extent to which clause 7.1 is likely to offer any protection. How can I answer this question using the IRAC format to score a first and also state and apply the necessary case law and legislation wherever required.