Reversing a summary judgment for defendant in this breach of contract suit, the Court of Appeal found the parties’ brief signed napkin agreement to be enforceable despite some ambiguities and terms left for later determination.  It was not too indefinite to enforce or too indefinite to indicate agreement on essential terms.  Parol evidence was properly admitted to construe the ambiguous writing.  As explained by the plaintiff’s principal, the agreement was for defendant to take over plaintiff’s in-escrow contract to buy 13 gas stations from a third party for a price plus allowing plaintiff to own four of the stations.  The locations of the 13 stations were not stated on the napkin, but could be easily ascertained from the in-escrow contract to buy them.  The fact that the napkin didn’t specify whether the deal was between the two principals or their two wholly owned corporations was not a fatal defect.  And, the fact that one element of the price was unspecified in the hope that the parties could negotiate a lower purchase price from the third party was not a fatal flaw since the price could later be determined from objective facts.