OK Detailing Ltd owns a piece of land. Dynamic Transport Ltd wants to buy part of it. The parties therefore entered into an agreement of purchase and sale. Dynamic promised to pay $250000; OK Detailing promised to transfer a specific portion of its property. A problem has arisen. When they created the agreement, both parties knew that the sale could not proceed without government permission, under the Planning Act, to subdivide the property into two lots. Their agreement, however, does not expressly say that the sale is conditional on that fact. Nor does it expressly impose an obligation upon either party to obtain the planning approval. Since the parties signed their agreement, the value of the land has increased from $250000 to $400000. OK Detailing now realizes that it entered into a very bad bargain and it is anxious to find some way out of the contract. It therefore argues that the sale cannot be completed because the government has not approved the necessary subdivision. In response, Dynamic notes that OK Detailing has not even applied for permission to subdivide its property. Dynamic also argues that it would be unfair if OK Detailing could escape the sale by simply refusing to seek planning approval. The only relevant sections of the Planning Act state: 19 A person who proposes to divide land in order to sell part of that land shall apply for approval of the proposed subdivision. Questions for Discussion Do the parties have a valid agreement? If so, is the performance of that agreement subject to a condition? If so, which party, if either, has an obligation to satisfy that condition? What relief, if any, should be available if that obligation is not met