California Court of Appeal

Because the offer to compromise did not prescribe any specific mode of communication of the acceptance, the only requirement was that the acceptance be communicated in a clear and unequivocal fashion, and absence of service of acceptance of a settlement offer did not render the acceptance invalid.

Appellate Information

• Decided 04/30/2002
• Published 04/30/2002

Judges

• REARDON, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
•  Anderlini, Finkelstein & Emerick, P. Terry Anderlini, Anne K. Brauer, San Mateo, for Appellant.


• For Appellees:
  
• Willard L. Alloway & Associates, Oakland, Jeanette N. Little, Robert L. Jackson, Santa Rosa, for Respondents.