With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 586-87, 106 S.Ct. at 1355-56 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)). III. ANALYSIS The parties agree that Texas law governs this contract dispute. Under Texas law, the language used by parties to a contract should be accorded a plain grammatical meaning, unless it definitely appears the intention of the parties would thereby be defeated. See Reilly v. Rangers Management, Inc., 12,1 S.W.2d 527, 529 (Tex.1987); Lyons v. Montgomery, 701 S.W.2d 641, 643 (Tex.1985). If the contract is worded so that it can be given a certain and definite meaning or interpretation, it is not ambiguous, and therefore a court should construe the contract as a matter of law. See United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 10 F.3d 1150, 1152 (5th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d 391, 393

A: holding that where the language of the contract is unambiguous and conveys a definite meaning the court may decide the meaning of the contract as a matter of law
B: holding an ambiguous contract will be construed against the party drafting the same
C: holding that if the contract can be given a definite and certain meaning or interpretation the contract is not ambiguous and will be construed by the court as a matter of law
D: holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established
C.