Opinion ID: 6260055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Language of the Bond

Text: The County Code, §2318, states: “(a) It shall be the duty of every county to require any . . . corporation entering into contract with such county for the construction ... of or addition to any public work or improvement of any kind, whatsoever . . . before commencing work under such contract, to execute and deliver to such county ... an additional bond for the use of any and every person, copartnership, association or corporation .... Such bond . . . shall be conditioned for the prompt payment for all material furnished and labor supplied or performed in the prosecution of the work, whether or not the said material or labor enter into and become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated.” The difference between the bond as executed and the statute is the presence in the latter of the following specific language: “whether or not the said material or labor enter into and become component parts of the work or improvement contemplated.” The court below, on the authority of Commonwealth to Use v. A. Stryker, Inc., 109 Pa. Superior Ct. 137, 167 Atl. 459 (1933), held that the terms of the act are not to be read into the bond. While it is true that some decisions have held that the terms of a bond are not to be so expanded, Commonwealth to use of Pandolfo v. Pavia Company, 381 Pa. 488, 113 A. 2d 224 (1955), Anno. 77 A.L.R. 21, 152 (1932), §2318 speaks in mandatory language. Subsection (d) states “any contract executed in violation of the provisions of this section shall be null and void.” Thus, as written, the bond is of no effect, and in order to satisfy the statutory requirements, it is necessary to read into the bond what the statute demands. Certainly the interest in contracting as parties wish is an extremely important one and one that courts are anxious to protect. Where, however, the Legislature has established as a matter of public policy that parties are not free to contract in a certain way, the courts must enforce that public policy and cannot permit it to be eroded by contracts between individuals. Elizabethtown Borough to use v. Savastio Construction, Inc., 44 Pa. D. & C. 2d 596 (1968); 2 Williston, Contracts §372 at 931-2 (3d ed. 1959). This is particularly so when it is intended that third party beneficiaries will be the ones taking advantage of the bond, and they are not present to protect their interests when the contract is negotiated. Also, when individuals supply labor or material to a bonded job, they should not have to check the exact terms of the bond but should be able to assume that the parties have obeyed the Legislature’s mandate and included in the bond everything required by §2318. Therefore, we hold that the court below erred when it refused to construe the bond as including the legislatively mandated language.