Agreement. The Court finds there is nothing ambiguous about this language and that the limitation on Aerel’s entitlement to post-termination commissions is apparent from the plain language of the Agreement. In addition, the Court rejects Aerel’s argument that Paragraphs 2-F and 2-G conflict with Paragraph 5-B and, therefore, create ambiguity regarding Aerel’s entitlement to post-termination commissions. As PCC correctly notes, when the Agreement is read as a whole, it is apparent both from the sequence of these contractual provisions and their content that Paragraph 2-F applies to PCC’s general duty to remit payment during the contract term, and that Paragraph 2-G addresses the amount of commissions to be paid on sales falling within the Agreement. See Foster Wheeler, 678 N.E.2d at 526 (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Paragraphs 2-F and 2-G appear
recognizing that a statute should be read as comprehensive whole holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context holding that consideration supports the agreement as a whole