Art Supply Store is closing and holding a going out of business sale.  Painter, having just made an offer to lease a large studio space from Landlord, offers to purchase all of Art Supply’s remaining inventory for $15,000 cash, to be paid within 5 days.  Painter requires the purchase to be conditioned upon the studio lease being completed, and Art Supply agrees.   Painter writes out a simple memorandum of the terms as follows:
 
“Art Supply to discontinue further sales of inventory to the public immediately.  Painter to purchase all remaining inventory for $15,000 to be paid in cash within 5 days.  Art Supply to deliver inventory to Painter’s studio immediately upon payment.”
 
Both Painter and Art Supply sign the memorandum.  2 days later, Landlord notifies Painter that the studio space has been leased to another artist and rejects Painter’s offer to lease the space. Painter promptly calls Art Supply and tells them she won’t buy the remaining inventory. 
 
If Art Supply sues Painter to enforce the contract, and the parties admit every fact described above, the most likely outcome will be:
 
Group of answer choices
 
Painter will win because she cancelled the contract before the payment was due to Art Supply
 
 
 
Painter will win because the condition precedent to her obligation to perform was not met
 
 
 
Art Supply will win because Painter wrote the memorandum and contracts in writing are interpreted “against” the drafting party
 
 
 
Art supply will win because the condition related to the lease will not be admissible because it was omitted from the memorandum