Haberman v. Dept. of Employment Security

1 Citing case

  1. Town of Lyndon v. Burnett's Contracting Co.

    413 A.2d 1204 (Vt. 1980)   Cited 14 times
    Holding that a party's failure in its notice of appeal to mention an interlocutory order dismissing a counterclaim did not preclude the Court from considering an appeal of the dismissal

    It is true, as defendants argue, that § 6.16 is one of the special conditions which, according to § 6.1, control whenever there is a conflict with another provision. If possible, however, a contract must be construed to give effect to every part, and therefore this Court will avoid constructions that render ineffectual any part of the language of a contract. Haberman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 573, 575, 396 A.2d 141, 142 (1978) (per curiam); Furlon v. Haystack Mountain Ski Area, Inc., 136 Vt. 266, 269, 388 A.2d 403, 405 (1978). Section 6.16, when read in conjunction with § 4.14, simply means that all easements that have been acquired are on file; it does not mean that all easements for the entire project are on file. This construction avoids any conflict between the provisions, and gives effect to the instrument as a harmonious whole.