a single transaction. See generally Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So.2d 40, 44-47 (Fla.1952). The central fact here is the parties’ single, indivisible agreement. A contract is “indivisible” or “entire” when “by its terms, nature, and purpose, it contemplates and intends that each and all of its parts, material provisions, and the consideration, are common each to the other and interdependent.” 15 Williston on Contracts § 45:1 (4th ed. 2000). “There is a presumption against finding a contract divisible, unless divisibility is expressly stated in the contract itself, or the intent of the parties to treat the contract as divisible is otherwise clearly manifested.” Id. at § 45:4 (footnotes omitted). See, e.g., First Nat’l Bank of Hollywood v. Freedman, 244 So.2d 183, 188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (<HOLDING>); Fla. Mortgage Fin., Inc. v. Flagler Plaza
holding that federal statutes and regulations can form the basis of a breach of contract claim if expressly incorporated into the contract holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding a contract was divisible in its nature  if the intention is expressly stated in the contract holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding under new york law that even if several contracts that constitute part of the same transaction are considered one contract the different obligations within each contract may be independent and divisible