A library contracts to purchase a sculpture for $1,000 due upon delivery; The sale is conditioned on approval by the chairperson of the Artistic Patronage Council; The chairperson orally approves; If the library sues the artist for breach, which statement is true?

• A. The contract is unenforceable due to lack of consideration.
• B. The contract is unenforceable because the chairperson's approval was not in writing.
• C. The contract is enforceable; the chairperson's approval is a condition precedent not within the library's control.
• D. The contract is unenforceable due to lack of mutuality.

Answer: (C)

A condition precedent supplied by a third party can bind the parties even when it isn’t formally written, if that condition is not within the library’s control. Here, the sale is conditioned on approval by the chairperson of the Artistic Patronage Council. Because that approval is a prerequisite to the contract taking effect, its satisfaction is what creates a binding agreement, not the library’s unilateral choice or a written document alone.

The chairperson’s oral approval, since it comes from a person outside the library’s direct control, satisfies the condition and makes the contract enforceable. Once the condition is met, the library’s promise to pay $1,000 becomes due upon delivery, and the artist may sue for breach if payment or delivery fails. The absence of a written form does not prevent enforcement here because the condition precedent has occurred and the contract has formed.

The other options aren’t correct because:

• There is a legitimate consideration: the library’s promise to pay and the artist’s promise to deliver are bargained-for exchange.

• Mutuality exists: both sides have enforceable obligations once the condition is satisfied.

• The lack of a written agreement is not the controlling issue given that a third-party approval has occurred and formed the contract.