Yeah, of course, but the idea behind writing-in contingencies on...

Yeah, of course, but the idea behind writing-in contingencies on a contract is that the described deal only goes ahead if the specified parameters are met. Therefore, in your scenario, the partner entity are not liable for the proposed $30m until the specific hurdle (e.g. 2x2) is clear. My company has contingencies in just about all our supplier contracts. Basically, they are in-principle deals which only become formalised when a specified milestone is reached. It can end up benefiting both sides. In PAR's case, this could immediately re-invite optimism and lift the share-price if a CR is needed to bridge the gap, it may even assist in securing a credit-agreement / debt-funding, again to bridge the gap until the trials are green-lit because that is the trigger for up-front payment. This all feels better to me than being forced to CR while the company is in it's current circumstance of open-ended waiting time and dwindling cash position.