Regarding assigned case TA Operating Corp. v$.$ Solar Applications Engineering, Inc., $191$ S$.$W$.3d173($Tex$.$ Ct$.$ App. $2005)$:

Match the plaintiff's and defendant's arguments on appeal.

Plaintiffs argument

$[$Choose$]$

Delendant's argument

$[$Choose$]$

The substantal performance doctrine does not excuse a fallure to comply with an express condition precedent.

Since there was substantial performance, they fully performed the contract, and express conditions precedent don't have to be met.