In other words, is it predictable for the objective viewer or for parties who may have special knowledge? In this case where a miller lost production because a carrier delayed the repair of broken mill parts, the court decided that there was no damages to be paid, since the loss was not foreseeable by either the «reasonable man» or the carrier, both of whom expected the miller to have a spare part in stock. A term may be implied based on habits or uses in a given market or context. In the case of Australia, Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur (Aust) Limited,[82] implicit deadline requirements were set. .