right of first refusal contained in the option, because the right of first refusal in the shareholder agreement applies only to offers to sell shares to entities that are not affiliates of Interactive (or its assignee) while the right in the option applied to all assignments or transfers to non-affiliates. Further, Section 2.8 does not use the broad defined term “Transfer.” This failure to use a defined term in Section 2.8 reinforces that only sales of shares fall within the scope of the right of first refusal contained in the shareholder agreement. If this Court construed “sale” any more broadly, such an interpretation would directly conflict with Section 1.2 of the shareholder agreement. See Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware, 876 So.2d 652, 654 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>); Kipp v. Kipp, 844 So.2d 691, 693 n. 2 (Fla.
holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions holding that construction that neutralizes any provision of a contract should not be adopted if the contract can be construed to give effect to all provisions holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract 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