What is the test for consent?

I consider that these facts, whether including (c) or not, do not constitute "something in the nature of a direct dealing". Consequently I find that, while there was consent, there was not "privity and consent". In reaching that conclusion I recognize that the test to be applied does not require direct contractual relations between the owner and the lien claimant, and I realize that the facts of Orr v. Robertson are similar. However, on the facts of the latter case as reported it appears to me that something in the nature of direct dealing was afforded particularly by the fact that the head tenant ordered the contractor to do certain of the work. In the present case that did not occur. (b) Was there "direct benefit"?