stating that an “agreement must be considered as a whole, and interpreted so as to harmonize and give meaning to all its provisions”
How later courts described this case
- stating that an “agreement must be considered as a whole, and interpreted so as to harmonize and give meaning to all its provisions”
- finding that a contract is to be construed in its entirety “so as to harmonize and give meaning to all its provisions”
- an agreement is to be interpreted so as to give meaning to all its provisions
- “The general rule is that if an offer is of such a kind that the offeror needs to know of the acceptance in order to determine its subsequent action, and the offeree has reason to know this, a notice of acceptance must be given.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DAVIS, Judge,
concurring in part:
*86 I concur in the result and in Judge Kashiwa’s opinion except for the part holding that the condition precedent to the Government’s right to extend the period of performance had not been fulfilled on October 4, 1969. I abstain from joining in that portion of the opinion because I believe that, if the Government had duly chosen to extend the time for another 12 months (which in fact it did not do), the extension would have been valid.