We must next determine whether plaintiffs accepted defendants' offer. In general, we turn to contract law to determine whether there has been a valid offer and acceptance. Under contract law, an acceptance of an offer must be unconditional. Id. Defendants argue that plaintiffs' purported acceptance of the offer of judgment was invalid because it was conditional and varied from the terms of the offer. Specifically, they rely on the language of the acceptance that conditioned acceptance on a construction of the offer that allowed plaintiffs to pursue attorney's fees and costs.
Defendants argue that plaintiffs' assumption was at variance with their intent in making the offer.
Because we have held that the offer did not have to include attorney's fees and costs within the stated amount, it is clear that plaintiffs' acceptance did not vary the terms of the offer. At best, defendants' argument is that the acceptance is invalid because it was conditional, even if the condition is a correct statement of the legal effect of the offer. We do not believe that the applicable contract formation law is this formalistic. As we have held, the condition imposed by plaintiffs was implied in the offer as a matter of law. In such a case, the acceptance is sufficient to form a contract.