28-3-202. Effect to be given to every part of contract. The whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable, each clause helping to interpret the other.
Montana Code Annotated
Mont. Code Ann. § 28-3-202 (2026)
Effect To Be Given To Every Part Of Contract
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MT-LEGleg.mt.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
TITLE 28. CONTRACTS AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS
CHAPTER 3. INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTS
Part 2. General Rules of Interpretation
Effect To Be Given To Every Part Of Contract
History: En. Sec. 2206, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 5030, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 7532, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 1641; Field Civ. C. Sec. 806; re-en. Sec. 7532, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 13-707.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 71
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 2009 MT 286, 215 P.3d 675.
Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 2009 MT 286, 215 P.3d 675. “Section 28-3-202, MCA. The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
State Ex Rel. Bullock v. Philip Morris, Inc., 2009 MT 261, 217 P.3d 475. “" Section 28-3-202, MCA. "The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Anderson v. Stokes, 2007 MT 166, 163 P.3d 1273. “” Section 28-3-202, MCA. If the language of a contract is unambiguous-i.”
Richards v. JTL Grp., Inc., 2009 MT 173, 212 P.3d 264. “" Section 28-3-202, MCA. "The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Broadwater Dev., L.L.C. v. Nelson, 2009 MT 317, 219 P.3d 492. “Section 28-3-202, MCA. To be a valid conveyance, the writing must (1) identify the grantor and the grantee, (2) adequately describe what is being conveyed, (3) contain language of conveyance, and (4) be signed.”
Carbon Cnty. v. Union Reserve Coal Co., Inc., 898 P.2d 680 (Mont. 1995). “When looking to other parts of the deed as prescribed by § 28-3-202, MCA, we see that the deed provided only for a per ton royalty on coal but did not provide for a royalty on the coal seam methane gas.”
Daniels v. Thomas, Dean & Hoskins, Inc., 804 P.2d 359 (Mont. 1990). “While paragraph seventeen specifies how much a terminated shareholder will be paid under certain conditions, paragraph sixteen specifies when the payment will be made.”
Corp. Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr., 2008 MT 283, 190 P.3d 1111. “” Section 28-3-202, MCA. “The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity.”
Krajacich v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2012 MT 82, 276 P.3d 922. “3d 264 (quoting § 28-3-202, MCA). "It is [a] well-established principle of contractual construction that in interpreting a written instrument, the court will not isolate certain phrases of the instrument to garner the intent of the parties, but will grasp the instrument by its…”
Weter v. Archambault, 2002 MT 336, 61 P.3d 771. “" Section 28-3-202, MCA. ¶ 24 The provision most important to the sale of tract "G" is paragraph 3(b) of the 1993 Contract, which provides: In the event that BUYERS [Archambaults] desire certain portions of the realty, the SELLER [Weter] agrees to allow such sales and to accept…”
In Re the Marriage of Oehlke, 2002 MT 79, 46 P.3d 49. “Section 28-3-202, MCA (the whole of a contract is to be taken together so as to give effect to every part if reasonably practicable).”
Travelers Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ribi Immunochem Rsch., Inc., 2005 MT 50, 108 P.3d 469. “Sokolowski , ¶ 15 (citing § 28-3-202, MCA). We now extend Sokolowski’s holding to the standard pollution exclusion in a CGL policy.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.