there was no explicit mention of assumption and because there was some uncertainty about the notice to Harris’ creditors. We find neither rationale supports the ruling. We agree that assumption under section 365 requires the express approval of the court, In re Whitcomb & Keller Mortgage Co., 715 F.2d 375, 380 (7th Cir.1983); In re Kelly Lyn Franchise Co., 26 Bankr. 441, 445 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1983); 2 Collier on Bankruptcy 11365.03, at 365-25 (L. King 15th ed. 1985), but conclude the requirement was satisfied. It is not seriously disputed, and there is no finding to the contrary, that the whole purpose of the stipulation was to effect an assumption of the Fort Ord contract, as revised to permit the government’s withholding. Cf. In re Whitcomb & Keller Mortgage Co., 715 F.2d at 380 (<HOLDING>). Harris indicated its intent to assume the
holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties holding a contract was divisible in its nature  if the intention is expressly stated in the contract holding there was no assumption where neither the bankruptcy court nor the debtor exhibited any intention of assuming the contract holding under the 1898 act that neither the debtor nor its property was involved in stock ownership dispute holding that there can be no plain error where neither we nor the supreme court has addressed an issue