A and B have just signed a written agreement for the purchase by A of B's house.During the negotiations,A made it clear to B that his purchase was conditional on A conducting a building inspection of house within five days of the date of the agreement,which was satisfactory to A.However,this condition is not included in the agreement.In this situation,
A)evidence of the building inspection would be admissible because it is a collateral agreement,the consideration for which is the agreement of purchase and sale.
B)evidence of the building inspection would not be admissible because,since this is an agreement for land,the Statute of Frauds applies to bar evidence of the building inspection.
C)evidence of the building inspection cannot be given because of the parol evidence rule.
D)evidence of the building inspection would be admissible because it is a subsequent agreement.
E)evidence of the building inspection would be admissible because it is a condition precedent to the agreement of purchase and sale.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

When a condition is a precedent to the agreement, evidence of that condition can be admitted as it does not contradict the written agreement. In this case, A made it clear that the purchase was conditional on a building inspection. As this condition was not included in the written agreement, it can be considered a condition precedent, and evidence of the inspection would be admissible.

A and B Have Just Signed a Written Agreement for the Purchase