What is the test for clearing a rental condition in a condominium agreement?

The defendant contends that the rental condition was a circumstance that had to be cleared before the parties became bound to perform their substantive obligations pursuant to the contract. Thus, it was legally a condition precedent. See Newton v. Graham, 2011 SKQB 423, 386 Sask.R. 176, at paragraph 35. The condition precedent was intended to protect the defendant so that if there was a period of time between the possession date and the defendant’s possession of a condominium she planned to buy, she would be able to stay on at the subject property. This condition was therefore intended to be for the defendant’s benefit, ensuring that she would not be left without a place to live if there was an interval between possession dates.