We have stated that in order to create an enforceable contract, there must exist a mutual intent to create a legal obligation. Moen v. Meidinger, 1998 ND 161, ¶ 6, 583 N.W.2d 634. However, "[i]t is the words of the contract and the manifestations of assent which govern, not the secret intentions of the parties."

" Lire, Inc. v. Bob's Pizza Inn Restaurants, Inc., 541 N.W.2d 432, 434 (N.D. 1995). "The parties' mutual assent to a contract is determined by their objective manifestations of contractual assent." Moen v. Meidinger, 1998 ND 161, ¶ 6, 583 N.W.2d 634. "It is the words of the contract and the manifestations of assent which govern, not the secret intentions of the parties." Amann v. Frederick, 257 N.W.2d 436, 439 (N.D. 1977).

True, an objective standard governs some contract-law questions. See, e.g. , Moen v. Meidinger , 583 N.W.2d 634, 636 (N.D. 1998) ("The parties' mutual assent to a contract is determined by their objective manifestations of contractual assent."); Dan Nelson Const., Inc. v. Nodland & Dickson , 608 N.W.2d 267, 275 (N.D. 2000) ("[C]ourts construing changed conditions clauses apply an objective, reasonable person standard, in which a court places itself into the shoes of a reasonable and prudent contractor to decide how such a contractor would act ...." (internal quotation marks omitted) ).

Whether or not statements constitute a personal guaranty is a question of fact. Exact words of guarantee are not essential, where the words and circumstances are sufficient to clearly infer a guarantee. . . . Courts generally attempt to determine whether the words used -- against the background of the circumstances which surrounded the use of those words -- would cause the creditor reasonably to believe that the promisor had agreed to answer for a principal obligation on the part of another person.Moen v. Meidinger, 1998 ND 161, 583 N.W.2d 634, 636 (N.D. 1998) (citations and quotations omitted). "However, to charge one person with the debt of another, the undertaking must be clear and explicit."