protection, in terms of the lessor, if it did not carry with it the right to reasonably exhibit the premises durin[g] that period. Were this not the case, the landlord would suffer a month’s loss in rental since no one would rent the property without the right to first examine the premises. Id. The same principle applies in the present case. For the foregoing reasons, we hold the lease gives Alta Vista the right to access the premises temporarily at reasonable times to show the property to prospective buyers. Because we have reached this conclusion without considering extrinsic evidence and the only available extrinsic evidence further supports Alta Vista’s in terpretation, we can interpret the lease as a matter of law even though it is ambiguous. See Pillsbury Co., 752 N.W.2d at 435 (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 212, at
holding that court may not use extrinsic evidence unless contract language is ambiguous holding that court must determine intent of parties by reference to language of release turning to extrinsic evidence only when it determines as a matter of law that terms are ambiguous holding that a court may consider extrinsic evidence to determine whether a contract is ambiguous holding that extrinsic evidence admissible to determine intent of parties holding interpretation is a matter of law for the court when it does not depend on extrinsic evidence