Because Amwest has consented to those changes in advance, the changes may also affect Amwest’s obligation to secure B & F’s performance. Changes that release B & F do not. The best argument that the district court’s construction does not create a redundant contract lies in the Winston-b&seA premise of Hardaway’s position: a modification permitted in the subcontract (and incorporated into the surety bond) does not discharge the surety. This holding of Winston was concededly an extrapolation by the Sixth Circuit of the majority rule in order to ascertain unclear Georgia law. 508 F.2d at 1304 (employing majority rule that compensated sureties do not benefit from canon of stricti juris). But cf. Houston Gen. Ins. Co. v. Brock Constr. Co., 241 Ga. 460, 246 S.E.2d 316, 318-19 (1978) (<HOLDING>). Thus, the parties to the surety agreement
holding that the interpretation of an unambiguous contract is a question of law holding that stricti juris does not apply to compensated sureties but unambiguous contracts must not be extended by interpretation holding that the statutes 30 day provision is mandatory and may not be extended and dicta that it may not be extended by release from incarceration holding that courts adopt statutes interpretation that is supported by statutes plain language if statute is unambiguous unless such interpretation would lead to absurd results holding that to foreclose a conflicting agency interpretation a prior court decision must hold that its construction follows from the unambiguous terms of the statute