79. The Trustee replies that the interpretation of Rule 1(2) should be construed as enabling the crediting of contributions to retirement accounts from surplus. The Trustee argues that this is consistent with Schedule E which allows benefits to be paid from the Fund where the value of the retirement account is insufficient. The Principal Employer argues that because a rule is ambiguous does not mean that it has no meaning and that the only feasible meaning to be given to the words is that they envisage an alternative to actual payment. If the words merely referred to an alternative method of payment, they would have to be more specific as to how and when payments should be made. If they referred, for example, to the possibility of paying by instalments, then there is no reason why the words should not have applied to contributions under Rule 1(1)(b) as well as to Rule 1(1)(a). Furthermore, where actual payment is required the word pay or payable or the like is used. This, they say, is to be contrasted, for example, to the wording of Rule 5(1)(b) of Schedule C which refers to contributions allocated by an employer.