Where a building contract provides that a performance bond is available to the principal 'acting reasonably', this imposes a subjective qualification requiring that the claimant genuinely and honestly believe it is entitled to the amounts claimed, not an objective requirement that the claim be demonstrably valid. Courts should ordinarily construe contractual provisions governing recourse to performance bonds at the interlocutory stage, rather than deferring the construction question to trial, because failure to do so may defeat the risk allocation purpose of the bond. The existence of a contractor's cross-claim does not of itself render the principal's recourse to security unreasonable.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 61 later cases that cite this judgment.
11 of the 61 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.