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
holding an ambiguous contract will be construed against the party drafting the same 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 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 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 holding that in order for a contract to be enforced it is necessary that all the essential terms of the contract must first be established by competent evidence and shown to be definite certain clear and unambiguous