contract covered all of the Anderson-Valero settlement funds and, therefore, Holseth was entitled to fifty percent of the entire fund. Appeal No. 93-6215 addresses those decisions. II No. 9S-615S A The FDIC first asserts that the district court erred in submitting the breach of contract issue to the jury because Holseth failed to present sufficient evidence on which a jury could find a breach of contract. Hol-seth’s claim was that the FDIC prevented Holseth from performing the contract, and breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing. See Jury Instructions 9, 10 (Holseth’s Answer Brief 4-5). “[A] party to a contract may not prevent performance of a condition and then claim the benefit of such condition.” Townsend v. Melody Home Mfg. Co., 541 P.2d 1370, 1374-75 (Okla.Ct.App.1975) (<HOLDING>); see also Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Macerich Real
holding manufacturer of mobile homes could not deny dealer incentive bonus based on late payment when manufacturer was involved with finance company in delaying payment holding that the term reverse payment is not limited to a cash payment holding that it was not essential to an action by a supplier on a payment bond under the miller act that a demand be made on the general contractor for payment  although there was evidence in the case from which it could be found that the materialman looked to the general contractor for payment  since the statute does not require a demand for payment but merely requires written notice of the claim holding wholesale dealer had antitrust standing in suit against manufacturer where dealer refused to comply with minimum resale price levels set by manufacturer and was terminated as a dealer holding that there was a triable issue of fact whether a defendant who applied a sprayon fireproofing material was an agent for the manufacturer of the material and thus whether plaintiff is in privity with the manufacturer