WATT, J.:

¶ 1 We granted certiorari to address a single issue: whether, after foreclosure, the guarantors1 were entitled to credit on the mortgagee's judgment for the fair and reasonable market value of the property2 disposed of at sheriff's sale?3 We determine that the guarantors effectively waived the right to a credit or setoff of the fair and reasonable market value of the property. Our determination is supported by the plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of the respective guaranty agreements which is sufficient to waive the right of a fair market value setoff to the guarantors' debts.4

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 Early in 2000, Chase loaned the restaurant $1,750,000.00 to purchase real estate and equipment for a restaurant. The loan was secured by a mortgage and by two guaranty agreements. Initially, Kreth and Vallion entered identical guaranty agreements waiving any and all rights given to guarantors at law or in equity other than actual payment and agreeing not to assert or make any claim of setoff.5

¶ 3 Vallion transferred a number of assets to the James Vallion Trust including the restaurant property. Thereafter, Chase required Vallion to execute a second guaranty agreement6 waiving and agreeing not to assert any limitation defense and the benefits of any statutory provision limiting the trust's liability including "without limitation" the provisions of sections 334,7 337,8 338,9 and 34410 of title 15 along with any right to setoff under 12 O.S.2001 § 686.11

¶ 4 Upon default, Chase filed a foreclosure suit in 2005 receiving summary judgment in its favor. The judgment was affirmed and the property was sold at sheriff's sale in December of 2006 to Chase for $750,000.00. The sale was confirmed at a hearing on January 5, 2007. Chase filed a motion for deficiency judgment asking that the restaurant and the guarantors be given credit for the sheriff's sale price of $750,000.00. Later, Chase filed a "clarification" in the cause indicating that the mortgagor was entitled to credit for the fair and reasonable value of the property as determined by the trial court. Nevertheless, the bank asserted the guarantors could only benefit from the $750,000.00 actually paid for the property at the sheriff's sale.12 The argument was premised on the guarantors having waived all rights of setoff in their respective guaranty agreements.

¶ 5 On March 15, 2007, the trial court announced its judgment. It found the fair and reasonable value of the mortgaged property to be $1,500,000.00. The trial court determined that the guarantors were entitled to a credit on the judgment of the fair market value of the property, $1,500,000.00, rather than the sale price of $750,000.00. Chase appealed alleging that the determination of the fair market value of the property was too high and that the guarantors waived any rights of setoff based on a fair and reasonable market value determination. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed on March 12, 2010. We granted certiorari on May 25, 2010 to consider the sole issue presented: whether, after foreclosure, the guarantors' obligation should be credited with the court-determined fair and reasonable market value of the property?

¶ 6 The plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of the respective guaranty agreements is sufficient to waive the right of a fair and reasonable market value setoff to the guarantors' debts.

¶ 7 Chase argues that the guaranty agreements waived all rights of the guarantors to setoffs for the adjudicated fair and reasonable market value of the property. Both the restaurant and Kreth assert that a credit of the judicially determined fair market value of the property is appropriate pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 686.13 Vallion insists that the failure of his after-executed guaranty agreement to specifically waive the provisions of 15 O.S.2001 § 34114 providing for a guarantor's obligation to be reduced to the same extent as that of the borrower mandates that he be allowed a credit of the judicially determined fair and reasonable market value of the property. It is agreed that the restaurant should receive credit for the reasonable fair market value of $1,500,000.00. Nevertheless, we disagree with the guarantors' contentions that they are entitled to the same relief.

Construction of guaranty contracts.

¶ 8 Before looking at the precise language of the guaranty contracts, it is helpful to review the rules of construction governing such agreements.15 Generally, the promise to stand for the debt of another is purely contractual and collateral to that of the principal debtor.16 Intent at execution controls the meaning of the written terms17 and the extent of the obligation is defined by the promise given.18 Contract language is accorded its plain and ordinary meaning absent a term intended to carry a specific technical meaning.19

¶ 9 The parties' intent in executing a guaranty contract is gathered from the entire instrument.20 Extrinsic evidence need not be introduced when the language is clear and explicit.21 If the contract is complete in itself and, viewed in its entirety unambiguous, its language is the only legitimate evidence of intent.22 The courts decide, as a matter of law, whether a contract provision is ambiguous.23 Absent illegality, the parties are free to bargain as they see fit, and this Court will neither make a new contract or rewrite existing terms.24 Finally, under Oklahoma law, guaranty agreements are construed most strongly against the guarantor.25

The Kreth guaranty agreement.

¶ 10 The original guaranty agreements signed by Kreth and Vallion on February 15, 2000 provide in pertinent part:

¶ 11 Specialty and Kreth assert that the guaranty agreement's failure to contain specific references to the waiver of protections contained in the statutes governing guaranty agreements, i.e. 12 O.S.2001 § 68627 and 15 O.S.2001 §§ 33428 and 341,29 entitles Kreth to a setoff in the amount of the judicially determined fair and reasonable value of the property. We disagree.

¶ 12 The guaranty agreement Kreth executed specifically provides that, as guarantor, Kreth waived any and all30 defenses at law or in equity other than actual payment. The only "actual" payment here was the purchase price of $750,000.00. Further, Kreth agreed not to assert or claim, at any time, any deductions to the amount guaranteed under the agreement for any claim of setoff.

¶ 13 The plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of the Kreth guaranty agreement waived "any and all" rights of any setoff to the guarantors' debts other than actual payment. That being the case, Kreth is not entitled to a reduction in his obligation to Chase in the amount of $1,500,000.00, the judicially determined fair and reasonable market value of the property.

The Vallion guaranty agreement.

¶ 14 Vallion signed a second guaranty agreement after creating a trust and transferring his interest in the restaurant property into the same. Vallion signed the second guaranty contract on September 21, 2004. It provides in pertinent part:

¶ 15 Vallion insists that the quoted language from the guaranty agreement is insufficient to waive his right to receive credit for the fair and reasonable market value of the real property. The contention is simply not credible.

¶ 16 The term "any" is all-embracing and means nothing less than "every" and "all."32 Utilization of the word "including" along with the phrase "without limitation" denotes an intention of non-exclusivity.33 The term "including" is neither limiting nor exclusive.34

¶ 17 The guaranty contract provides that it waives the benefits of "any" statutory provision limiting the liability of a surety, including "without limitation" several specific statutory references. It goes on to utilize the same language in relation to 12 O.S.2001 § 686, the precise provision relating to offsets for the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged property. It is difficult to contemplate how the Bank could have more effectively accomplished eviscerating the guarantor's right to a setoff for the fair market value of the property. Furthermore, a reasonable interpretation of the clear language of the agreement makes it apparent that the failure to specifically refer to 15 O.S.2001 § 341,35 limiting the obligation of the guarantor to that of the principal, does not require application of the statutory provision to the agreement. Utilization of the phrase "including without limitation" in the agreement most certainly was intended to extend the exclusion to the noted statutory provision.

¶ 18 The Vallion guaranty agreement specifically waived the right to setoff contained in 12 O.S. § 2001 686.36 Furthermore, the plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of the guaranty waived "any" and all "including without limitation" the statutory provisions limiting its liability. Vallion, like Kreth, is not entitled to a reduction in his obligation to Chase in the amount of $1,500,000.00, the judicially determined fair and reasonable market value of the property.

CONCLUSION

¶ 19 A guarantor's obligation is contractual. Therefore, in each case, we focus on the precise terms of the guarantor's undertaking, the dimension or breadth of the promise made.37 When parting with funds, the lender is free to extract from guarantors terms and conditions less favorable than those afforded by statute.38 Guarantors are bound by the unambiguous terms of the contract although the result may be harsh.39

¶ 20 The Bank successfully negotiated terms in its favor. Doing so does not render the contract unenforceable for public policy reasons. We hold that the plain, clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and unequivocal language of the Kreth and Vallion guaranty agreements is sufficient to waive the right to a fair and reasonable market value setoff of the guarantors' liability. The cause is affirmed as to its conclusion regarding the restaurant's entitlement to a credit for the fair and reasonable market value of the property against the deficiency judgment entered. The cause is reversed and remanded for an entry of judgment against the guarantors consistent with this opinion.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS' OPINION VACATED; TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART; AND CAUSE REMANDED.

EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, WATT, WINCHESTER, JJ., concur.

COLBERT and REIF, JJ., dissent.

KAUGER, J., not participating.