The bank agreed to lend money to Wilder Enterprises Ltd. and, in order to secure repayment of the loan, the company granted the bank a security interest in all of its assets. The loan was also personally guaranteed by members of the Wilder family, who owned the company. Periodically, the bank increased the company’s credit limit as the company expanded its business. When the company experienced financial difficulty, however, the bank dishonoured two of the company’s cheques. That prompted a meeting between the bank and the Wilders, the result of which was that the bank agreed to loan additional funds to the company, and refrain from demanding payment on its loan, in exchange for additional guarantees from members of the Wilders family. Despite the agreement, and without warning, the bank stopped honouring the company’s cheques and demanded payment of the loan in full. When the company was unable to pay, the bank appointed a receiver-manager and took control of the company. The receiver-manager refused the company’s request to complete the projects that the company then had underway and, as a result, the company went bankrupt. The bank sued the Wilders for payment pursuant to the guarantees that the bank had, all of which permitted the bank to “deal with the customer as the bank may see fit.” Will the Wilders be obligated on their guarantees? How sympathetic are the courts likely to be? Could the Wilders have structured their affairs differently to avoid high personal risk for the escalating debts of their failing business?