A condition precedent to the taking effect of a contract is said to be waived by the conduct of the party for whose benefit such condition is inserted in treating such contract as in effect, in spite of the breach of such condition.1 If the original contract is in writing, it is difficult to explain this result on the theory of a modification by the agreement of the parties, since the parol evidence rule would prevent the modification of the written contract by prior or contemporaneous oral negotiations.2

1 See Sec. 110 et seq.

2 Home Fire Insurance Co. v. Wilson, 118 Ark. 442, L. R. A. 1918E, 409, ,176 S. W. G8S.

3 Home Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 118 Ark. 442, L. R. A. 1918E, 409, 176 S. W. 688.

4 Warren v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 161 Ia. 440, L. R. A. 1918E, 477, 143 N. W. 554; Harris v. North American Ins. Co., 190 Mass. 361, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1137, 77 N. E. 493; Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McDowell. 42 Okla. 300, L. R. A. 1918E, 391, 141 Pac. 273.

5 See Sec. 2659 et seq.

1 Arkansas. Home Ins. Co. v. North Little Rock Ice & E. Co., 86 Ark. 538, 23 L. R. A. (N.S) 1201, 111 S. W. 994.

California. California Raisin Growers' Association v. Abbott, 160 Cal. 601, 117 Pac. 767.

Illinois. Security Trust Co. v. Tar-pey, 182 Ill. 52, 54 N. E. 1041.

Indiana. Glens Falls Ins. Co. v. Michael, 167 Ind. 659, 8 L. R. A. (N.S.) 708, 79 N. E. 905.

Massachusetts. Harris v. North American Ins. Co., 190 Mass. 361, 4 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1137, 77 N. E. 493.

New York. Stover v. Flack, 30 N. T. 64; McClelland v. Mutual Life Ins.