 There is, I think, an analogy with the distinction which Lord Cross of Chelsea drew in "Liverpool City Council v Irwin" [1977] AC 239, 257-258 between terms implied into all contracts of a certain type and the implication of a term into a particular contract...It seems to me logical to found liability for damages upon the intention of the parties (objectively ascertained) because all contractual liability is voluntarily undertaken.It must be in principle wrong to hold someone liable for risks for which the people entering into such a contract in their particular market, would not reasonably be considered to have undertaken."