Question: Herpel, Inc., agreed to make a stone fireplace mantel for a house owned by Straub Capital Corp. When the mantel was first delivered, Straub was not satisfied, so Herpel took the mantel back, refinished it, and redelivered it five weeks later. The mantel was installed, but Straub did not pay. Herpel filed a mechanic's lien 113 days after the first delivery but less than 90 days after the second delivery. Herpel then filed an action in a Florida district court to foreclose on the lien.

The trial court ruled in favor of Straub because the lien had been filed more than 90 days from the time the mantel was first delivered. The appellate court reversed, noting that although the time for filing a lien is not extended by repair, corrective, or warranty work, "work done in fulfillment of the contract will extend the time for filing of the claim of lien." In view of these events, consider the following questions. [Herpel, Inc. v. Straub Capital Corp., 682 So.2d 661 (S.D.Fla. 1996)]

1. The court's ruling hinges on the fact that Herpel took the fireplace mantel back, attempted to cure the alleged defects, and then offered it again for acceptance by Straub. Do you agree that this work was "in fulfillment of the contract," rather than to correct the defects?

2. Would the outcome of this case have been different if the fireplace mantel had been left with the buyer at the time of delivery and the seller had attempted to make repairs to it while it was in the buyer's possession? Why or why not?

3. Generally, do you think that it is fair for the court to consider who was in possession of the mantel at the time of repair when determining whether the lien was filed within the statutory time period?