In Arizona, even if one part of a severable contract is void, the court may enforce the remainder of the contract. Hackin v. Pioneer Plumbing Supply Co., 10 Ariz. App. 150, 157, 457 P.2d 312, 319 (1969) ("A lawful promise made for a lawful consideration is not invalid merely because an unlawful promise was made at the same time for the same consideration."). A contract may be severed, however, only if its terms clearly show the parties intended it to be severable. Olliver/Pilcher Ins., Inc. v. Daniels, 148 Ariz. 530, 533, 715 P.2d 1218, 1221 (1986). In determining whether a contract is severable, the parties' intent is most important: The intention of the parties, as determined from the contractual language and the subject matter, is of primary importance; if it were intended to take the whole or none, the contract is not divisible. . . . Another indicium is whether the consideration for two or more promises is entire or if it is capable of apportionment among the several promises. Kahl v. Winfrey, 81 Ariz. 199, 203-04, 303 P.2d 526, 529 (1956).