exist. This Settlement Agreement can not be changed or terminated orally.” Holland did not sign the Settlement Agreement, nor is there a signature line designated for him. ¶ 22. On January 6, 1993, before the Settlement Agreement was actually executed, the federal court held a settlement hearing. The court questioned all parties present as to whether the agreement stated to the Court was in fact their agreement, and each responded that it was. Holland, however, was not present at the settlement hearing. ¶23. In interpreting any agreement the cardinal rule is to give effect to the intentions of the parties. Holloman v. Holloman, 691 So.2d 897, 899 (Miss.1996); Century 21 Deep S. Properties, Ltd. v. Keys, 652 So.2d 707, 717 (Miss.1995); Newell v. Hinton, 556 So.2d 1037, 1042 (Miss.1990)(<HOLDING>); Eight v. Sheppard Bldg. Supply, Inc., 537
holding that intent of parties to choice of law must be given effect holding that in interpreting a contract the actual purpose and intent of the parties must be derived recognizing that in interpreting a statute our primary purpose is to ascertain the intent of the legislature holding that the primary goal when interpreting an insurance contract is to ascertain the intent of the parties as manifested by the language of the specific insurance policy holding courts must adhere to legislative intent when interpreting a statute