It severs ‘should’---that’s immediate.

The specifications in the drawings for the mini-piles stated that the capacity for the mini-piles was "to be" 6,000 or 8,000 pounds and that the length of the mini-piles was "to be" adequate to get into undisturbed soil to a depth adequate for obtaining the required capacity. The specifications in the project manual stated that the mini-piles "should" have a capacity of 4 tons and 3 tons, that the mini-piles "should" be driven to minimum depth of 25 feet, and that a grout bulb "should" be formed at the base of a mini-pile. Kenneth Winters, an expert in structural engineering, and Richard Anderson, an expert in geotechnical engineering, agreed with Steve Maranowski, plaintiff's president, that the specifications in the project manual, because those specifications used the word "should," were permissive and suggestions of what plaintiff could do to achieve the required capacity. However, the trial court, when it instructed the jury on how to interpret the contract, instructed the jury that it was to interpret the words of the contract by giving them their ordinary and common meaning. An ordinary and common meaning of the word "should" is that it denotes a mandatory obligation. See People v Fosnaugh, 248 Mich App 444, 455; 639 NW2d 587 (2001) (stating that "the word 'should' can, in certain contexts, connote an obligatory effect"); Merriam-Webster's College Dictionary (11th ed) (defining "should," in pertinent part, as "used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency"). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to defendant, reasonable jurors could have honestly reached different conclusions on whether the specifications in the project manual were mandatory and, because Maranowski admitted that plaintiff did not use grout bulbs and did not drive all the mini-piles at least 25 feet into the ground, whether plaintiff breached the contract. Morinelli, 242 Mich App at 260-261.