In 1977, Jones Associates (plaintiff) entered into a contract with Eastside Properties (Eastside) (defendant) under which Jones Associates was to provide a feasibility study, master plan, nine record surveys, and nine short plats for Eastside for $17,480. The contract was a standard printed form, but Eastside modified the contract to contain, among other things, an express condition regarding a satisfactory economic feasibility study. In May of 1978, Jones Associates submitted a short plat application to King County for approval and the application was rejected citing a number of conditions that needed to be met. Jones Associates and Eastside revised their contract so that Jones Associates could complete those conditions. The amended contract contained an additional flat fee of $12,550. In 1980, Eastside paid Jones Associates $15,000, but failed to pay Jones Associates the rest of the money because Jones Associates never obtained approval of the short plat application from King County. Jones Associates brought suit against Eastside for the remainder of the money. The trial court granted Eastside’s motion to dismiss stating that approval of the short plat application was a condition precedent to Eastside’s payment. Jones Associates appealed.