With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". intent.” Dalury v. S-K-I, Ltd., 164 Vt. 329, 670 A.2d 795, 797 (1995). Neither party contends the HCT Release is ambiguous. When a contract is unambiguous, its interpretation is a matter of law for the court. See John A. Russell Corp. v. Bohlig, 170 Vt. 12, 739 A.2d 1212, 1216 (1999) (“Whether the contract is ambiguous is a matter of law to be decided by the court. If the court concludes the writing is unambiguous, it must declare the interpretation as a matter of law.”). When presented with an unambiguous contract, Vermont law requires the court to determine the parties’ intent from the language of the contract itself, read the contract as a whole, and enforce it in accordance with its terms. See Southwick v. City of Rutland, 2011 VT 53, ¶ 4, 190 Vt. 106, 108, 35 A.3d 113, 114 (<HOLDING>); see also Downtown Barre Dev. v. C & S

A: holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
B: 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
C: holding that when the contract language is unambiguous we take these words to represent the parties intent and the plain meaning of this language governs its interpretation
D: holding that the clear and unambiguous words of an insurance contract should be given their plain and ordinary meaning
C.