203.” White Sands, 998 So.2d at 1051. Additionally, in order for an alleged contract to be considered void based on the indefiniteness of its terms, the “ ‘ “[i]ndefiniteness must reach the point where construction becomes futile.” ’ ” Ex parte Conaway, 767 So.2d 1117, 1119 (Ala.2000) (quoting Conaway v. Nickles, 767 So.2d 1116, 1117 (Ala.Civ.App.1998) (Crawley, J., dissenting), quoting in turn Heyman Cohen & Sons, Inc. v. M. Lime Woolen Co., 232 N.Y. 112, 114, 133 N.E. 370, 371 (1921)). “A court will, if possible, interpret doubtful agreements by attaching a sufficiently definite meaning to a bargain if the parties evidently intended to enter into a binding contract.” 1 Richard A. Lord, Williston on Contracts § 4:21 (4th ed.2007). See also Parr v. Godwin, 463 So.2d 129, 132 (Ala.1984)(<HOLDING>). In White Sands, a developer, White Sands,
holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties holding that the ambiguity created by the incompleteness is subject to clarification and being made certain by parol evidence where there was obvious intent to enter into a contract holding that parol evidence is admissible to show that an individual who signed a contract but is not named in the body is a party to the contract holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms