Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393 (Tex. 1983) held that courts should examine and consider the entire writing in an effort to harmonize and give effect to all the provisions of the contract so that none will be rendered meaningless. Id. No single provision taken alone will be given controlling effect; rather all provisions must be considered with reference to the whole contract. Id. When a contract provision makes a general statement on a matter and another provision makes a specific statement regarding the same matter, the more specific provision will control. See Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132, 133-34 (Tex. 1994). No one phrase, sentence, or section of a contract should be isolated from its setting and considered apart from the other provisions. Id. A contract must be based upon a valid consideration, in other words, mutuality of obligation. See Texas Gas Util. Co. v. Barrett, 460 S.W.2d 409, 412 (Tex.1970). Consideration is a bargained-for exchange of promises. See Roark v. Stallworth Oil & Gas, Inc., 813 S.W.2d 492, 496 (Tex. 1991). Consideration consists of benefits and detriments to the contracting parties. Id. The detriments must induce the parties to make the promises and the promises must induce the parties to incur the detriments. Id.