Cited by

Co., d 772, 776 (Minn. 2016) (quotation omitted).

“When the language is clear and unambiguous, [appellate courts] enforce the agreement of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract” and “do not rewrite, modify, or limit its effect by a strained construction.” Storms, (quotations omitted).

Co., (“Whether language in a contract is plain or ambiguous is a question of law that we review de novo.”).

Co., but we “will not construe the terms so as to lead to a harsh and absurd result,” Brookfield Trade Ctr.

Co., d 772, 776 (Minn. 2016).

Co., (quotation 7 omitted).

Co., d 772, 776 (Minn. 2016) (stating that courts should interpret a contract “as a whole and attempt to harmonize all of its clauses”).

Co., see also Glacial Plains Coop.

Co., d 772, 776 (Minn. 2016).

Co. , (quotation omitted).

“We look to the language of the contract to determine the parties’ intent.” Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Const r. Co.

“When the language is clear and unambiguous, we enforc e the agreement of the parties as expressed in the language of the contract.” Storms, (citation omitted).

When interpreting a contract, we “look to the language of the co ntract to determine the parties’ intent.” Storms, Inc. v. Mathy Const r. Co.

Co. , , 776 (Minn. 2016).