A party to a contract that has not done everything in its power to bring about the fulfillment of a condition precedent cannot rely on its non-fulfillment

In a transaction for the purchase of shares, it was agreed that the guarantees provided by the seller for the repayment of loans from various banks would be transferred to the names of the purchasers. The purchasers divided the guarantees between them, but one of the banks refused to replace the existing with a single guarantor, and the purchasers canceled the agreement due to non-fulfillment of the condition precedent.
The Court rejected the purchasers' contention and held that they could not rely on non-fulfillment of the condition precedent. A contract with a condition precedent is legally binding, however the practical obligations under it have not yet come into effect. At the same time, a person who inhibited the fulfillment of the condition precedent is not entitled to rely on its non-fulfillment. Here, the purchasers who undertook, "jointly and severally", to transfer the guarantees in their names had then decided to divide the guarantees in the two banks between them so that each of them would be a guarantor at a different bank - A division that led to the non-agreement of one of the banks and the non-fulfillment of the condition precedent. Therefore, they are not entitled to rely on the condition precedent in the agreement.