This does not imply the further deterioration that may result from a deliberate deterioration in the ownership of the business. However, it is necessary to prove that the property damage is intentional. To avoid damage to property or equipment, it is in the best interest of an employer to establish good guidelines. In deciding whether the surety was "non-refundable and without proof of damage," the court followed the previous authority, which supported the view that "the interpretation of whether a surety clause is refundable or not depends on the specific wording of the contract of sale." However, where a term is interpreted in an agreement, it is not sufficient to examine only the wording of the clause in order to decide on its importance and application; on the contrary, the clause must be examined in its place throughout the agreement. . . . .