In the March 1 contract between a homeowner and a builder, the builder's duty to perform was conditioned on rejection of the builder's pending bid. Can the homeowner recover for nonperformance?

• A. No, because parol evidence rule bars extrinsic evidence.
• B. No, because the builder's duty to perform was subject to a condition that was not satisfied.
• C. Yes, because the contract is in writing.
• D. Yes, the homeowner can recover for breach of contract.

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that performance can be conditioned on a condition precedent. If the contract makes the builder’s duty to perform depend on the rejection of the builder’s pending bid, then the duty to perform only arises if that rejection actually happens. If the condition is not satisfied, there is no duty to perform, so there is no breach to support a claim for nonperformance. Writing on the contract doesn’t by itself create a breach if the gating event never occurs.

In this scenario, because the builder’s obligation hinges on a condition that was not satisfied, the homeowner cannot recover for nonperformance. Parol evidence or the form of the contract doesn’t change that result. The other options rely on either misapplying the effect of a conditional duty or on a breach existing despite the conditioning, which isn’t the case here.