(Tex.2003). This court cannot rewrite the Contract or add to its language under the guise of interpretation. See id. at 162. Rather, this court must enforce the Contract as written. See Royal Indem. Co. v. Marshall, 388 S.W.2d 176, 181 (Tex.1965). Analysis of the Contract In the Contract, the parties agreed that, if the Buyers acquired at least forty-nine percent of the outstanding Sarco shares, then the Buyers would have the option to purchase the remaining shares, but only through a lump-sum payment by which the Buyers would acquire all remaining shares. The parties also agreed that the entire Contract would terminate unless the contemplated purchase of the Sarco shares was completed in its entirety by the End Date. The parties did not agree that any provisi xarkana 2009, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). If the Termination Provision is given effect,
holding that buyers of real property who were in constructive possession of the property had made a down payment and had signed a contract to purchase at the time of the loss had an insurable interest in the property despite a court determination two years after the loss that the agreement to purchase was not binding holding that court erred as matter of law in failing to enter judgment for employer at close of plaintiffs implied employment contract action holding the trial court erred as a matter of law in adjudicating a claim for relief that was not demanded by the parties holding that contract for purchase of real property terminated by its own terms upon buyers giving of a certain notice and that therefore the contract was no longer valid and enforceable holding that trial court erred as a matter of law by enforcing contract for purchase of real property that had terminated by its own terms