Sunshine, a 21-year-old concert pianist, lived in a tiny studio on 90210 West Beach Street, CA. Sunshine couldn’t keep her piano in the apartment because the apartment was too small, so in order to practice each day she had to travel to the Beach Bum School of Performing Arts to use their, “like, totally cool musical facilities.” Finally Sunshine decided to move out of her little studio and purchase a more spacious place where she could put her piano. While house hunting, Sunshine found a cute pink house on Newport Beach Blvd. in Newport, CA. She put a bid down on the house with the seller’s broker but was informed that the Owner was in India on business and would not entertain any offers until she returned.
While waiting for word on the pink house, Sunshine’s friend, Dude, orally agreed to sell his “like, radically stellar” Beach Baby Grand to her for $10,000. Sunshine explained that she only wanted the piano if she was successful in her efforts to secure the pink house. Dude and Sunshine agreed that the piano sale would not take effect “unless Sunshine buys the Pink House in Newport, CA.” The next day the parties reduced their oral agreement to writing but did not include any mention of the sale not taking effect unless Sunshine bought the home in Newport. Two weeks later the owner of the Pink House returned from India and rejected Sunshine’s offer.
Dude now brings an action against Sunshine for breach of K to buy the Beach Baby Grand.

If Sunshine offers to prove, over Dude’s objection, that she had not been able to buy the Pink House, how should the court rule?