In Corrie v. Soloway (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 436, the parties entered into an option agreement giving the plaintiff an option to purchase a portion of a parcel that had not been subdivided. The parties renewed the option twice with additional terms. Both the original option and the first renewal failed to comply with the SMA. But the second renewal provided that it was conditioned on compliance with the Act. The Court of Appeal held the second renewal option constituted an enforceable agreement, noting in part: "Section 66499.30(e) does not specify a particular form of words required to expressly condition a sale of real property on compliance with the SMA. We decline to construe it as a trap for the unwary. The parties in this case used language obviously designed to track and comply with section 66499.30(e), not to evade it. 'A contract must receive such an interpretation as will make it lawful, operative, definite, reasonable, and capable of being carried into effect, if it can be done without violating the intention of the parties.' (Civ. Code, 1643.) We therefore find that the option agreement created by Amendment No. 2 satisfied the SMA's requirements." (Corrie v. Soloway, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 452.)