[brief] I.  There is No Enforceable “Agreement” Between [...] and Plaintiff  Since Plaintiff Did Not Satisfy the Unambiguous Requirements Set Forth in the Terms and Conditions of the Title Commitment (44a–48a).  The Trial Court correctly held that, as a matter of law, there was no enforceable contract under the plain and unambiguous terms of the Title Commitment because there was no valid real estate contract since Plaintiff’s real estate transaction violated the New Jersey Tax Sale Law.  Plaintiff continues to make the erroneous argument that despite the nonexistence of a valid real estate contract that it nevertheless had an “agreement” with [...].  However, Plaintiff’s continued distortion of the unambiguous terms of the Title Commitment and the Trial Court’s well-reasoned blatantly ignores its own obligations to satisfy the requirements of the condition precedent to form a valid contract.  Yet, this was impossible since the Plaintiff could not obtain a valid deed because the underlying real estate contract was illegal.  Thus, Plaintiff did not have an enforceable “agreement” with [...] since Plaintiff did not satisfy the terms of the Title Commitment by delivering a valid deed.  The unambiguous terms of the title commitment clearly establish it was no more than an offer which set forth that the issuance of the title insurance policy was conditioned on the Plaintiffs satisfaction of certain requirements.  (308a)  This included obtaining a valid deed from [...] and [...] evidencing conveyance of Title to Plaintiff.  (Id.)  Moreover, it is clear that the Title Commitment was no more than an offer because it plainly provided it was subject to automatic termination after 180 days if Plaintiff failed to satisfy these conditions precedent.  (305a)  Yet, this was not possible since Plaintiff could not acquire a deed conveying title to Plaintiff since the underlying real estate transaction was illegal under the New Jersey Tax Sale Law.  There is nothing contained in the Title Commitment which created an expectation that [...] would prepare or obtain a deed on behalf of Plaintiff, nor could [...] make such a promise because it is a service [...] is prohibited from providing in New Jersey as an unauthorized practice of law.  (134a, 26:19–27:9).  Therefore, Plaintiff’s failure to obtain and provide a valid deed as required by the title commitment cannot form the basis of an “agreement” between Plaintiff and [...].  Furthermore, since the enforceability of the title commitment’s terms is premised on the existence of a valid real estate contract and deed conveying title to Plaintiff, the commitment is clearly not a “collateral contract. ”  The existence of a valid real estate contract is inextricably linked to the creation of an enforceable contract between Plaintiff and [...].  This is more than evident because the only way in which Plaintiff could obtain a deed conveying title to it is through a valid real estate sales contract.  The plaintiff obviously could not do so since the entire real estate transaction was illegal under the New Jersey Tax Sale Law, as correctly held by the trial court.  Therefore, the trial court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants based on its well-reasoned opinion that the title commitment cannot form the basis of liability absent a valid real estate sales transaction – which was impossible because the real estate transaction was *illegal* – and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.