With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 49, 444 A.2d 659, 661 (1982), which will be given its commonly accepted and plain meaning, J.K. Willison, Jr. v. Consol Coal Co., 536 Pa. 49, 54, 637 A.2d 979, 982 (1994). Additionally, in determining the intent of the contracting parties, all provisions in the agreement will be construed together and each will be given effect. Murphy v. Duquesne Univ., 565 Pa. 571, 591, 777 A.2d 418, 429 (2001). Thus, we will not interpret one provision of a contract in a manner which results in another portion being annulled. Capek, at 274, 767 A.2d at 1050. Our Court has previously concluded that a party to a franchise agreement has an obligation to conduct itself with good faith and in a commercially reasonable manner. See Atlantic Richfield v. Razumic, 480 Pa. 366, 378, 390 A.2d 736, 742 (Pa.1978) (<HOLDING>); cf. 13 Pa.C.S.A. § 1201(20) (defining good

A: holding that noncompliance with terms of agreement did not terminate agreement failure to comply with date requirement in termination procedure rendered termination ineffective and letter between nonparty and party could not terminate agreement
B: holding that litigating franchise dispute in michigan does not require that michigan law govern dispute as michigan franchise investment law does not expressly void choice of law provisions in franchise agreement
C: holding that an agreement providing this agreement when signed by author and publisher will cancel and supercede the previous agreements  was clearly intended to terminate an earlier agreement
D: holding franchisor could not arbitrarily terminate franchise agreement as it would be a disregard of franchisees interests under the agreement
D.