on Contracts, §§ 645-646, at 86-87, 93-94 (1960). When the express language or nature of the contract do not make it clear that personal satisfaction is required, the law prefers the objective (reasonable person) standard. Amfac Inc., 839 P.2d at 23; Steller v. Thomas, 232 Minn. 275, 45 N.W.2d 537, 542 n. 8 (1950). Failure to perform a condition precedent, based on personal satisfaction or otherwise, generally vitiates the contract. Bruggemeyer v. Bruggemeyer, 258 N.W.2d 364, 366 (Iowa 1977). However, if one party to a contract prevents the other from performing a condition or fails to cooperate to allow the condition to be satisfied, the other party is excused from showing compliance with the condition. See Sheer Const., Inc. v. Hodgman & Sons, Inc., 326 N.W.2d 328, 332 (Iowa 1982) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 245
holding that there can be no implied contractual term at variance with an express term of a contract holding that a provision making all payments to subcontractor by  contractor expressly contingent upon payment for the work by contractor from owner is a payifpaid clause under texas law holding all contracts contain an implied term that the the person for whom the work is contracted to be done will not obstruct hinder or delay the contractor holding that a fee application must contain sufficiently detailed information about the hours logged and the work done holding that governmentcaused delay in contractor performance violated implied duty not to hinder performance of other party