In July 2008, Universal Structures filed a complaint for foreclosure of its mechanicâ€™s lien and other relief. Universal Structures was a general contractor, and the Buchmans were a married couple residing in Northfield, Illinois. In August 2006, Universal entered into a written demolition contract with the Buchmans to remove certain items throughout their home. Universal submitted numerous work orders to the Buchmans for remodeling services upon completion of those services, totaling in excess of $1.3 million. The Buchmans paid Universal $1.2 million, leaving an outstanding balance of $104,497.65, which formed the basis for Universalâ€™s mechanicâ€™s lien. The Buchmans refused to pay the balance on the basis that Universal did not provide them with a copy of the consumer rights brochure required by the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The Buchmans also alleged that Universalâ€™s lien rights were defeated by the absence of signed work orders for the contested portions of the project. The trial court agreed with the Buchmans and dismissed Universalâ€™s complaint, and Universal appealed. Is Universal precluded from asserting a mechanicâ€™s lien upon the Buchmansâ€™ property in the absence of signed work orders and the failure to deliver a copy of the consumer rights brochure? Why or why not?