Bundy hired Bend Tarp and Liner to install a liner in a pond on his golf course. The day after the liner had been installed, Bundy discovered that a section of the wall of the pond had collapsed. At the point of the collapse, the pond liner had torn and water escaped from the pond. Bundy believed that the water loss was due to the torn liner, while Bend Tarp argued that the collapse of the wall was responsible for the tear. Bundy refused to pay Bend unless Bend agreed to repair the lining. Bend refused and filed a lien on the amount of the contract for the pond work plus interest. When Bundy still did not pay, Bend began action to foreclose its lien. As a defense against the foreclosure, Bundy argued that Bend breached its contract because Bundy received no benefit from the liner; thus, Bend could not foreclose. The trial court ruled that Bend’s installation of the liner was defective and thus Bend was not entitled to foreclose its lien. Bend appealed. How should the appellate court decide this case? What factors should the court take into consideration?