With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Agreement. The Court finds there is nothing ambiguous about this language and that the limitation on Aerel’s entitlement to post-termination commissions is apparent from the plain language of the Agreement. In addition, the Court rejects Aerel’s argument that Paragraphs 2-F and 2-G conflict with Paragraph 5-B and, therefore, create ambiguity regarding Aerel’s entitlement to post-termination commissions. As PCC correctly notes, when the Agreement is read as a whole, it is apparent both from the sequence of these contractual provisions and their content that Paragraph 2-F applies to PCC’s general duty to remit payment during the contract term, and that Paragraph 2-G addresses the amount of commissions to be paid on sales falling within the Agreement. See Foster Wheeler, 678 N.E.2d at 526 (<HOLDING>). Specifically, Paragraphs 2-F and 2-G appear

A: holding that when interpreting a statute or regulation courts must read the provisions of the law as a whole and in context
B: recognizing that a statute should be read as comprehensive whole
C: holding that a contract will be read as a whole and the intent of each part will be gathered from a consideration of the whole
D: holding that consideration for a contract as a whole covers the arbitration clause
C.