(excepting instances of “fraud, mistake or other invalidating cause” from the parol evidence rule). Among these exceptions is the allowance of extrinsic evidence to prove a condition precedent to a contract. Cecil v. Orthopedic Multispecialty Network, Inc., 5th Dist. No. 2006 CA 00067, 2006-Ohio-4454, 2006 WL 2474349, ¶ 38 (“Ohio [cjourts have recognized that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract”); Carter v. New Buckeye Redev. Corp. (Apr. 2, 1998), 8th Dist. No. 72501,1998 WL 158855 (“Parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent [that] was orally agreed upon, although the condition precedent was not included in the contract language”); Riggs v. Std. Slag Co. (Nov. 10, 1993), 9th Dist. No. 16199, 1993 WL 473817 (<HOLDING>); Roan v. Hale (1950), 102 N.E.2d 603, 604, 60
holding that parol evidence is admissible to establish a condition precedent to the existence of a contract holding that parol evidence is admissible to show that an individual who signed a contract but is not named in the body is a party to the contract holding that when a contract is partially parol and partially written parol evidence may prove the parol terms holding parol evidence is admissible to show mistake holding that parol evidence is admissible to determine intent of parties