Personal guarantee upheld even though one of the defendants was director of plaintiff company

Guarantees – appeal of High Court ruling that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff as guarantor under an agreement – continuing validity of the obligations undertaken – worldwide distribution rights in Caterpillar (CAT) clothing – whether the trial judge erred in finding that the fact that Mr. Bond was a director of the plaintiff, SRI Apparel Ltd., was not an unusual feature of the contractual relationship between that company and Revolution Ltd. – whether the trial judge erred in finding that Mr. O’Sullivan was not discharged from his obligations under the guarantee by reason of the variations to the 2009 agreement brought about by the 2011 agreement – whether the trial judge erred in failing to attach any weight to the reference to the need for a personal guarantee – s. 194 of the Companies Act 1963 – High Court judge did not err in law when she concluded that the fact that Mr. Bond was a director of SRIA did not make Mr. O’Sullivan’s contractual relationship with SRIA “materially different in a potentially disadvantageous respect” from which he might naturally have expected when taking on the role of surety – trial judge did not err in law in failing to discharge Mr. O’Sullivan as surety of Revolution’s liabilities because at the time he agreed to the variation brought about by the 2011 agreement he was not made aware of the fact that SRIA had been in breach of the 2009 agreement – trial judge did not err in law when she decided to attach no weight to the subjective opinion expressed by Mr. Gallinger in his e-mail of January 2011 to the effect that a personal guarantee from Mr. O’Sullivan would be required in respect of Revolution’s obligations under the 2011 agreement – appeal dismissed.