Id. at 233-34. Construing the words “without restriction” to authorize the demolition and return of property in a useless state would contradict the parties’ intent. Id. at 234. The right to alter “is not plenary” and at the very least requires the tenant not to destroy, in whole or in part, a building without accompanying repair and reconstruction. Id. ¶25 King’s Court is consistent with Arizona law regarding both waste and contract interpretation. Contracts are to be read as a whole, harmonizing terms and reconciling conflicting provisions “by a reasonable interpretation in view of the entire instrument.” Brisco v. Meritplan Ins. Co., 132 Ariz. 72, 75, 643 P.2d 1042, 1045 (App.1982); see also Nichols v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 175 Ariz. 354, 356, 857 P.2d 406, 408 (App.1993) (<HOLDING>). As in King’s Court, the Lease term
holding that statutes must be read so as to give effect to all statutory language holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract holding that the words and provisions of a statute must be construed in a harmonious way holding that a contract must be read as a whole in order to give a reasonable and harmonious meaning and effect to all of its provisions citation omitted recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions