conditions precedent to a written contract”); Dependabilt Homes, Inc. v. Haettel (1947), 81 Ohio App. 422, 424, 37 O.O. 251, 76 N.E.2d 616, quoting Frankel Chevrolet Co. v. Snyder (1930), 37 Ohio App. 378, 174 N.E. 751, paragraph one of the syllabus (“ ‘Parol evidence may be given to prove separate oral agreement constituting condition precedent to attaching of obligation under contract’ ”). {¶ 16} Courts admit extrinsic evidence of a condition precedent because satisfaction of such a condition must occur before a contract comes into existence. Russell v. Daniels-Head & Assoc., Inc. (June 30, 1987), 4th Dist. No. 1600, 1987 WL 13943; Broderick Co. v. Colville (1931), 41 Ohio App. 449, 451-452, 179 N.E. 810. See also Mumaw v. W & S. Life Ins. Co. (1917), 97 Ohio St. 1, 11, 119 N.E. 132 (<HOLDING>). Thus, parol evidence establishing a condition
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a condition was precedent to performance because the contract language did not explicitly state that it was precedent to formation holding that for a suit to be brought in the venue in which the contract was to be performed the contract must expressly state where the performance of the contract was to occur holding a condition precedent is an act or event that must be performed or occur after the contract has been formed before the contract becomes effective holding that a contract is not effective until the performance of the conditions precedent and that a condition precedent calls for the happening of some event or the performance of some act after the terms of the contract have been agreed on before the contract shall be binding on the parties