he had committed no breach, and neither party had notified the other of the termination of the contract. A negative answer is required, Greenbelt theorizes, because Johnson and Greenbelt had no contract at the time the meter was removed, the substitution of Castleberry for Johnson as a party to the contract operating, if not to terminate the contract, at least to amend or modify it to provide that Castleberry was the one to whom service was furnished and terminated for nonpayment. It is unprofitable to speculate on the matter of a rescission or termination of the 1972 contract inasmuch as the parties themselves do not seriously contend for an intent to void the contract per se. Cf. Southern Travelers’ Ass’n v. Wright, 34 5.W.2d 823, 826 (Tex. Com’n App.1931, holdings approved) (<HOLDING>). Johnson testified that by his August, 1974
holding that the consent of both parties is required to annul their contract holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding that both plaintiff and defendant could be prevailing parties within meaning of lease agreement because both parties achieved some judgment on the merits of their claims or counterclaims at trial holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract holding that a consent judgment is essentially a contract