133, 110 So. 299 (1926).” 500 So.2d at 1081 (emphasis added). In other words, the general rule regarding guaranties is so strict that courts will not stop to inquire whether any alteration was injurious or beneficial to the guarantor. Courts from various jurisdictions have held likewise. See, e.g., Wigley v. Capital Bank of Southwest Missouri, 887 S.W.2d 715, 724 (Mo.Ct.App.1994) (“[A] guarantor is entitled to strict construction of the guaranty; a material alteration of the obligation guaranteed without the guarantor’s consent will discharge the guarantor; if a change enlarges or lessens the liability, it is material and discharges the guarantor; and courts do not inquire whether the alteration was injurious or beneficial.”). See also Bright v. Mack, 197 Ala. 214, 72 So. 433 (1916) (<HOLDING>). The Eagertons argue that the Chapter 11
holding that hearing officers noting the parties agreement did not constitute a change in the parties legal relationship holding in a case involving surety liability that an intentional material change in a contract by the original parties without the consent of the surety discharges the surety holding in a breach of contract action brought by a government contract surety under the tucker act that the tucker act contains an unequivocal expression waiving sovereign immunity as to claims not particular claimants holding that an order requiring the agency to search the records did not constitute courtordered change in the relationship of the parties holding that the consent of both parties is required to annul their contract