Defendant in this lemon law case made a proper 998 offer of $35,001 plus either (a) $10,000 for pre-offer fees and costs, or (b) the sum the court awards for preoffer fees and costs (at the plaintiff’s election) in exchange for dismissal of the case and return of possession of and title to the car. Even though the lemon law allows a prevailing plaintiff to recover “expenses” in addition to court costs and fees, the offer’s silence as to expenses did not invalidate the offer. Instead, it is presumed that to be an offer to pay stated sums plus pre-offer expenses. The offer was also not required to state that the plaintiff would be treated as the prevailing party for purposes of determining preoffer costs and fees. The offer avoided the problem in MacQuiddy v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (2015) 233 Cal.App.4th 1036 by not requiring that the car be returned in “good condition.” The consumer protection purpose of the lemon law doesn’t overcome 998’s purpose of promoting settlement