Plaintiff, a tenant in common in a piece of real prop$-$erty, had agreed to sell his interest therein to defend$-$ant, the other tenant in common. The contract of sale provided that defendant was to pay plaintiff $$25,000$ upon the execution of a bargain and sale deed trans$-$ferring title to the defendant as the sole owner of the real property. The contract of sale further provided that plaintiff could continue to store his equipment at the property $$for a maximum of $60$ days from the date$$ of the contract of sale, and that $[$i$]$mmediately upon the permanent removal of all of the equipment from the premises, Evelyn A$.$ Cuggino shall pay the sum of ten thousand $($$$10,000\mathrm{.}00)$ dol$-$lars $...$ to Peter J$.$ Magnani, which shall occur no later than $60$ days from the date of this agreement.$$ At a nonjury trial, the evidence established that plaintiff had not removed his equipment within the $60-$day period, yet defendant paid plaintiff the sum of $$2,000$ prior to plaintiff$$s removal of the equipment, but not the remaining $$8,000.$ Plaintiff sued to recover $$8,000$ for breach of a contract for the sale of real property.The trial court dismissed plaintiff$$s action. The court found that plaintiff was not entitled to recover the remaining $$8,000$ due under the agreement, since removal of the equipment within the $60-$day period was a condition precedent to plaintiff$$s entitlement to be paid the sum of $$10,000$ by defendant. Plaintiff appealed this dismissal, claiming the contract of sale did not provide for a forfeiture of plaintiff$$s right to recover the $$10,000$ if he failed to remove the equip$-$ment within the $60-$day period, and therefore it was not a condition precedent. How do you think the case was resolved on appeal? Why?