In considering the true intention of the parties, if the words used in the document would lead to absurdity, repugnancy or inconsistency with the rest of the document, the court should consider an approach that will avoid the incongruity whiles effectuating and not defeating the true intention of the parties. See Impraim v Baffoe [1980] GLR 520. Also, in ascertaining the intention from the written instrument itself, the court is not expected to think for the parties and thus substitute a presumed intention which is not expressed. See Prempeh v Agyepong [1989-90] GLRD 116; Allan Sugar (Products) Ltd v Ghana Export Co. Ltd (Supra). In Gorman & Gorman v Ansong (Supra), the Supreme Court remarked that: “It was not the duty of the courts to make contracts for the parites. And, where the terms of the contract had been reduced into writing, the court would interpret them to give effect to the intentions of the parties.” In engaging in this exercise, it is paramount that the document is not read piecemeal. It must be read as a whole to ensure that the resultant intention fortifies a harmonious acceptance of what is contained therein. The above discourse makes it quite clear that the law frowns upon interpretations which seek to substitute the intention of the parties with another. And that, any construction that does not effectuate the intention of the parties at the time of entering into the transaction must be rejected.