Evidence of a person’s character is generally inadmissible to prove they acted in conformity with it on a particular occasion.
Other acts evidence is admissible for non-propensity purposes: motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident. The proponent must articulate the purpose, and the court applies the balancing test.
In commercial cases this is how a pattern of similar misrepresentations to other customers comes in — offered to show intent or absence of mistake, not to show the defendant is dishonest.
Habit is different from character. Evidence of a person’s habit or an organisation’s routine practice is admissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion in conformity with it, without corroboration and without an eyewitness.
The distinction is specificity and regularity. A general reputation for carefulness is character. An invariable practice of mailing invoices the day after shipment is habit, and it proves the invoice was mailed.
Organisational routine is frequently the only way to prove a document was sent, received or filed years ago. Establishing it requires a witness who can describe the practice and its consistency, not merely assert that it existed.