On March 1, Computer Programs, Inc. (CP) orally agreed with Holiday Department Store (HDS) to write a set of programs for HDS's computer and to coordinate the programs with HDS's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety: HDS will pay CP $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if CP is successful in shortening by one-half the 17 processing time for the financial transactions now handled on HDS's Zenon 747 computer; CP to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing. On June 6, CP demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After HDS denied liability, the parties orally agreed that HDS should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of HDS's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, CP completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by CP and HDS's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with HDS's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47 percent. They would, however, save HDS $12,000 a year. Further, if HDS would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by CP, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58 percent, saving HDS another $8,000 a year. HDS's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. HDS asked the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to CP even though HDS continued to use the programs"Assume for this question only that CP was in breach of contract because of its four-day delay in completion and that an express condition precedent to HDS's duty to pay the contract 18 price has failed. Can CP nevertheless recover the reasonable value of its service?
Yes, because continued use of the programs by HDS would save at least $12,000 a year.  Yes, because HDS was continuing to use programs created by CP for which, as HDS knew, CP expected to be paid.  No, because failure of an express condition precedent excused HDS from any duty to compensate CP.  No, because such a recovery by CP would be inconsistent with a claim by HDS against CP for breach of contract