In Landberg v. Landberg (1972) 24 Cal. App. 3d 742, the offer was explicitly premised on three specific conditions. The purported acceptance explicitly accepted one of the conditions and explicitly rejected the other two conditions. The court concluded that the purported acceptance was a counteroffer rather than an acceptance because it sought to vary the terms of the offer. (Landberg at pp. 754-757.) The familiar principles of contract law regarding "valid acceptance" was summarized in Landberg v. Landberg as follows: "(1) a valid acceptance must be absolute and unqualified (Civ. Code, 1585), and (2) qualified acceptance constitutes a rejection terminating the offer; it is a new proposal or counteroffer which must be accepted by the former offeror now turned offeree before a binding contract results.