In contract law, a condition precedent is a specified event that must occur prior to a party having to perform a contract obligation.

In your example, the demonstration is the condition precedent and funding is the obligation to be performed. So, yes, "no demo, no money" is another way to put it.

The "investor's reasonable satisfaction" is the standard used to determine whether the condition has been satisfied (and thus whether the obligation will be triggered). The reasonableness standard falls somewhere in the middle segment on a scale of investor-friendly to inventor-friendly contract language. For example, "the investor's sole discretion" is investor-friendly (though likely subject to a good faith duty); "the investor's discretion" is still investor-friendly and is limited by a good faith duty; "the investor's reasonable discretion" anchors the discretion not in what the investor would want to do but in what would be objectively reasonable. Removing investor discretion and replacing it with something like "upon demonstration" would be inventor-friendly.

What is reasonable will vary widely based on the industry and product obsolescence timelines.

In contract law, a condition precedent is a specified event that must occur prior to a party having to perform a contract obligation.

In your example, the demonstration is the condition precedent, and funding is the obligation to be performed. So, yes, "no demo, no money" is another way to put it.

The "investor's reasonable satisfaction" is the standard used to determine whether the condition has been satisfied (and thus whether the obligation will be triggered). The reasonableness standard falls somewhere in the middle segment on a scale of investor-friendly to inventor-friendly contract language. For example, "the investor's sole discretion" is investor-friendly (though likely subject to a good faith duty); "the investor's discretion" is still investor-friendly and is limited by a good faith duty; "the investor's reasonable discretion" anchors the discretion not in what the investor would want to do but in what would be objectively reasonable. Removing investor discretion and replacing it with something like "upon demonstration" would be inventor-friendly.

What is reasonable will vary widely based on the industry and product obsolescence timelines.

In contract law, a condition precedent is a specified event that must occur prior to a party having to perform a contract obligation.

In your example, the demonstration is the condition precedent and funding is the obligation to be performed. So, yes, "no demo, no money" is another way to put it.

The "investor's reasonable satisfaction" is the standard used to determine whether the condition has been satisfied (and thus whether the obligation will be triggered). The reasonableness standard falls somewhere in the middle segment on a scale of investor-friendly to inventor-friendly contract language. What is reasonable will vary widely based on the industry and product obsolescence timelines.

In contract law, a condition precedent is a specified event that must occur prior to a party having to perform a contract obligation.

In your example, the demonstration is the condition precedent and funding is the obligation to be performed. So, yes, "no demo, no money" is another way to put it.

The "investor's reasonable satisfaction" is the standard used to determine whether the condition has been satisfied (and thus whether the obligation will be triggered). The reasonableness standard falls somewhere in the middle segment on a scale of investor-friendly to inventor-friendly contract language. For example, "the investor's sole discretion" is investor-friendly (though likely subject to a good faith duty); "the investor's discretion" is still investor-friendly and is limited by a good faith duty; "the investor's reasonable discretion" anchors the discretion not in what the investor would want to do but in what would be objectively reasonable. Removing investor discretion and replacing it with something like "upon demonstration" would be inventor-friendly.

What is reasonable will vary widely based on the industry and product obsolescence timelines.