we affirm the order of the trial court because the work done previous to EM ’s ownership of the property was not “the work of erecting or constructing the improvement.” 49 P.S. § 1508. The work in the instant case does not qualify as either “erection or construction” or as an improvement in and of itself. The Mechanics’ Lien Law includes specific examples of erection and construction, which encompass the work performed by Toscano in the instant case: “[djemolition, removal of improvements, excavation, grading, filling, paving and landscaping, when such work is incidental to the erection, construction, alteration or repair.” 49 P.S. § 1201(12)(a)(emphasis added); see also Sampson-Miller Associated Companies, Inc. v. Landmark Realty Co., 224 Pa.Super. 25, 303 A.2d 43, 45-46 (1973) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, the work performed by
holding that the measure of damages for breaching a building construction contract is ordinarily such sum as is required to make the building conform to the contract holding that construction safety manuals and codes were properly admitted as objective standards of safe construction recognizing rule of statutory construction that statutes must be read as a whole and sections which are part of the same general statutory scheme must be construed together and each given effect if it can be done by any reasonable construction holding construction of new building was part of a grocers business holding that installation of storm and sanitary sewers paving and curbing as well as clearing grubbing excavating and grading of land must be incidental to construction of a building in order to qualify as erection and construction