In doing this, the best guide to that intent is the plain meaning of the document under review. See Park 'N Go v. United States Fid. Guar. Co., 266 Ga. 787, 791 ( 471 S.E.2d 500) (1996); OTI Shelf v. Schair Assoc., 238 Ga. App. 12, 13-14 ( 517 S.E.2d 542) (1999). The court must consider the whole of the Agreement and the Plan, construction of contracts being a holistic endeavor under Georgia law.

There is no evidence that any of these conditions occurred. Oti Shelf, Inc. v. Schair Assocs., 238 Ga. App. 12, 13 ( 517 SE2d 542) (1999). Id. at 13-14.

" (Citations and punctuation omitted.) OTI Shelf v. Schair Assoc., 238 Ga. App. 12, 13-14 ( 517 SE2d 542) (1999). The matter of contract construction is a question of law for the Court that is subject to de novo review.

Because the trial court based its award on its finding of an oral agreement between Johnson and Eggleston, this enumeration of error is moot. See OTI Shelf v. Schair Assoc., 238 Ga. App. 12, 14 ( 517 S.E.2d 542) (1999) (because agent's entitlement to commission was not predicated on his procurement of a buyer, court declined to apply OCGA § 10-6-32's principle, i.e., broker's commission is earned where broker is a procuring cause). 3. Eggleston also appeals the denial of his motion for summary judgment.