If a party wrongfully interferes with the occurrence of a condition precedent, what is the effect?

• A. Performance is generally due once a contract is formed, but a condition can delay or discharge performance.
• B. A condition precedent will be excused if a party wrongfully prevents or interferes with its occurrence.
• C. A condition subsequent excuses performance automatically when the specified event occurs.
• D. The occurrence of a condition always remains necessary for performance.

Answer: (B)

A condition precedent is a future event that must occur before a party’s duty to perform arises. If one party wrongfully blocks or interferes with that event happening, the other party is excused from having to perform because the trigger for performance never actually occurred due to the obstruction.

For example, consider a contract where delivery depends on a permit being issued. If the seller wrongfully prevents the permit from being issued, the buyer cannot be held to perform to deliver, since the condition that makes performance due has been thwarted.

This matches the idea that interference with a condition precedent can excuse performance. The other statements don’t fit because they either talk about automatic discharge from a different type of condition (a condition subsequent), or they imply performance remains due regardless of interference, which isn’t correct when the condition’s occurrence is prevented by a party.