A QUESTION OF ETHICS Herpel Inc, agreed to make a stone ...

[tth]

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
  Herpel Inc, agreed to make a stone fireplace mantel for a house owned by Straub Capitol 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.

Question 2

In Armstrong v. Food Lion, the Armstrongs were beaten by employees of a grocery store. They sued the store. The South Carolina high court held that the store was:
 a. liable on the theory of respondeat superior b. liable under the rule of vicarious liability
  c. liable based on negligent hiring of employees with criminal records d. liable in strict liability
  e. none of the other choices

[bob]

Answer to Question 1

A QUESTION OF ETHICS
1. The court reasoned that work done in fulfillment of the contract is contemplated by the contract and extends the time for filing, since the contract is not complete until the work is done. Remedial work in the nature of correction or repair does not extend the time for filing the claim of lien since the contract is already complete, and any additional work performed is merely incidental to the executed contract. Applying that reasoning, the court determined that the final furnishing of the materials occurred when the mantel was reinstalled . . . . The owner rejected the mantel as non-conforming to the contract when it was initially tendered. In response to the owner's objections, Herpel took the mantel back, allowed for further curing, and presented the mantel once again for acceptance. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the additional work on the mantel was performed to complete the job in compliance with the contract.
2. It might have made a difference. The court quoted from an earlier case, The majority rule is that, after the installation of fixtures or equipment in a building, later services in the nature of correction or repair are not regarded as a part of the installation so as to make the time within which to file under a mechanic's lien based on the original installation run from the time of performance of such later services.
3. It might be agued that the possession of nonconforming goods should affect the timeliness of a lien filing because possession can affect the nature of a buyer's or a seller's remedy for breach. Also, until the goods are in the possession of the buyer, the seller has no reason to expect payment.

Answer to Question 2

e