the power under the partnership agreement to require the Fund to reconvey its assets to the limited partners; this power of recon-veyance, they say, amounts to “control.” Third, Harvard, through Harprop (the only Class C limited partner of the General Partner), can direct the LLC (the general partner of the General Partner) to distribute the Fund’s assets to its limited partners, so it “controls” the Fund in that sense as well. To be sure, these scenarios suggest “control” in a lay sense. This case, however, is not concerned with the ordinary meaning of “control.” Where the parties to a contract take pains to define a key term specially, their dealings under the contract are governed by that definition. See J.A. Sullivan Corp. v. Commonwealth, 397 Mass. 789, 494 N.E.2d 374, 378 (1986) (<HOLDING>). So it is here. The parties to the
holding that a contract should be read to give reasonable meaning to all provisions of that contract 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 recognizing that a contract is to be construed to give reasonable effect to each of its provisions 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 holding that contracts should be interpreted to give effect to all provisions