In People v. American Bankers Insurance Co. (1991) 227 Cal. App. 3d 1289, overruled on another ground in People v. National Auto and Cas. Ins. Co. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 120, the court clerk failed to follow section 1305 by inadvertently mailing notice of forfeiture to another bail agent for the same surety. The agent then forwarded the notice to the correct agent, who received it within the requisite 30 days. The American Bankers court first noted that strict construction of the statute would result in an absurdity. (Id. at p. 1295.) The court also reasoned: "While it is appropriate for courts to strictly construe any ambiguities against the party seeking to enforce the forfeiture, we will not hesitate to enforce a forfeiture when the application of a statute or contract is reasonably clear. Nor will we blindly follow the literal meaning of every word if to do so would frustrate the legislative purpose of those words. As another court has said in interpreting this same section: It is the prime purpose of the courts, in examining a statute, to ascertain and effectuate the legislative purpose; a statute will not be given an interpretation in conflict with its clear purpose, and general words used therein will be given a restricted meaning when reason and justice require it, rather than a literal meaning which would lead to an unjust and absurd consequence." (Ibid.) Observing that "the obvious legislative purpose in directing that notices of forfeiture be mailed is to require that reasonable efforts are taken to give actual notice of the forfeiture of the bond to both the surety and the bail agent . . . ." the American Bankers court rejected the surety's contention that the failure to comply with the notice requirements of section 1305 deprived the trial court of jurisdiction. (Id. at p. 1295.)