But a court will not read an ambiguity into an unambiguous document in order to alter or vary its terms. Polk v. Mut. Serv. Life Ins. Co., 344 N.W.2d 427, 430 (Minn. App. 1984). Instead, the contract will be enforced even if the result is harsh.

This is consistent with prior interpretations of similar contracts as unambiguous and as allowing either party to terminate at will. See, e.g., Polk v. Mutual Serv. Life Ins. Co., 344 N.W.2d 427, 429-30 (Minn.App. 1984) (where employment contract provides both for termination at will by either party and for termination for cause by employer, employer may terminate employee under at-will provision); Martin v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 553 F.2d 573, 575 (8th Cir. 1977) (contract providing that party may terminate either at will or for cause unambiguously reflects an intent to reserve the right to terminate at will). Thus, the district court did not err in its interpretation of the parties' distributorship agreement.