Short answer. It must try to give effect to all of them. Rule 130, Section 12 provides that in construing an instrument with several provisions or particulars, the construction adopted — if possible — must give effect to all of them. Courts avoid readings that render any provision meaningless when a harmonizing interpretation is available.
What the law says
where there are several provisions or particulars, such a construction is, if possible, to be adopted as will give effect to all.
Rule 130, Section 12 — Instrument construed so as to give effect to all provisions. Read the full provision →
The 'give effect to all' principle
Section 12 sets a construction principle for instruments containing several provisions or particulars: whatever construction is adopted should, if possible, give effect to all of them. Courts are steered away from readings that treat some provisions as surplus or meaningless when the language can be reconciled. This principle discourages selectively emphasizing one clause while effectively writing another out of the agreement through a narrow or convenient reading. This principle binds the court's interpretive task, not the parties' freedom to draft; it does not let a court rewrite a poorly drafted clause to make it fit neatly with the others, only choose, among genuinely available readings, the one that honors every provision rather than discarding one.
Why courts favor harmony over selective emphasis
Parties to a written instrument are generally presumed to have intended each provision they included to serve some purpose. A construction that ignores or nullifies part of the document, when an alternative reading would honor every clause, undercuts that presumption — so the rule directs courts toward the harmonizing reading. Courts therefore favor constructions that let every clause do the work the parties apparently intended it to do, rather than treating any part as superfluous. This presumption applies to whoever drafted the instrument and to whoever is bound by it; a party cannot later argue that its own carelessly drafted clause should simply be ignored because giving it effect turns out to be inconvenient once a dispute arises.
The limiting phrase: 'if possible'
The rule is not absolute — it applies 'if possible.' Some provisions may genuinely be irreconcilable, in which case this section alone cannot resolve the conflict, and other interpretive rules — such as the general-versus-particular provision rule — come into play to determine which provision controls. Where genuine irreconcilability exists, this section does not by itself decide which provision wins; other interpretive principles then have to supply the answer. A court facing a genuine, irreconcilable conflict does not simply pick whichever provision it finds more convenient; it turns to the other established canons of construction, and the failure of harmony under Section 12 is what triggers, rather than replaces, that further interpretive analysis.