Opinion ID: 1204270
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Performance Guarantee

Text: The parties dispute whether M-N asked NGC to bond its work when recording NGC's phone bid. An M-N manager testified that an M-N employee asked NGC if it would bond its work at the time of the phone bid. [1] M-N asserts that NGC agreed to supply a bond. [2] NGC, however, argues that it merely stated it could bond the project; it claims, however, that it would only have bonded such a small project for a higher premium from M-N. Judge Shortell made no specific finding about the bond discussion during the bidding. The evidence on both sides conflicts and relies on inferences from company policy. M-N testified that it routinely asked potential subcontractors if they would bond the project; a yes on the bid checklist marked next to bondable meant that the subcontractor had agreed. However, no M-N employee testified from personal knowledge either that the M-N employee had communicated the policy or that NGC had agreed. For its part, NGC claimed that it routinely refused to include bonds in its bids. None of its employees, however, testified from personal knowledge of the conversation with the M-N employee. In our balancing of conflicting company policies, NGC's lack of credibility requires resolution of the doubt against its version. Thus, the bond requirement represented not an unreasonably imposed additional duty but rather a duty assumed by NGC at the time of bidding. M-N's later attempt to get personal guarantees from NGC's shareholders represents not an additional demand but rather an acceptance of a substitute for an obligation already assumed by NGC.