11 ms·

I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their fran

I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their franchise and the rest of the story. Why did they want to steal the sets? If they're really a $400M company (whatever that means), why would they do this over (at most) $200k? I couldn't figure out what is being claimed here. I'm not saying it's not true, I just can't follow the story at all. EDIT: After reading other sources, it seems that the franchise owed $200k to BAM (unrelated) and also made a deal with the Mansell's directly. And it seems like the parent company is saying the unsold sets have been returned but the money is theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise. BAM crossed into definitively illegal territory when they continued to sell sets after the Mandells asserted they wanted their property back (as confirmed by a "sting" operation). The Reckless Ben stuff is actually pretty interesting: https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?si=yhSzpEDo5ut6s8eS&t=880 https://youtu.be/14ktgvoH4Mc?si=yhSzpEDo5ut6s8eS&t=880

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
underlipton 5mo ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.
yesod 5mo ago
From what I can see: Franchisee entered into a consignment agreement to sell the lego. They were not allowed to do that, so corporate took over the franchise. BUT rather than unwind the agreement and return the lego, they just kept it. Argued for it to be dealt with legally. It was, they lost, so they closed down the store rather than return the lego.
- usehand 5mo ago
  According to the former franchise owner this is a lie from corporate and they were indeed allowed to sign consignment agreements. They showed a contract that says as much as evidence.
- dbeardsl 5mo ago
  > They were not allowed to do that Incorrect as the article points out with an image of the contract: > However, it was brought to my attention by site user @luddevig that Chrystal Law, the Bricks & Minifigs Salem-Keizer store's original owner, was able to pull the franchise agreement between her and and the B&M Corperation, that clearly states that consignment is allowed.
  - yesod 5mo ago
    Yup, agreed. B&M making every PR screwup you'd expect!
    - abirch 5mo ago
      They hired a PR firm that was looking at the base case and those averages. As Nassim Taleb points out, we live in Extremestan. No idea what the value was of the Bricks and Minifigs, but I'd be shocked if it hasn't dropped by 2 or 4 million dollars. Their biggest moat was their reputation.
- sylos 5mo ago
  Incorrect.
A_D_E_P_T 5mo ago
It's not that hard to understand. A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager. The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." They sell the goods and keep all of the revenue, rather than just their 10% share. It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. The side with possession and deeper pockets is the side with the leverage, sadly!
- iwontberude 5mo ago
  This is essentially what is going to happen with Monetary Metals (although I hope not!)
- throwaway85825 5mo ago
  Theft by conversion.
- busterarm 5mo ago
  They were actually getting a 35% share. This is pure greed.
- gkoberger 5mo ago
  It is hard to understand if you only read the blog posted here. They left out a lot of this specificity.
  - aaa_aaa 5mo ago
    This is because poster takes sides
    - calgoo 5mo ago
      Yes? Take the side of the person getting railroaded by a giant corporation, a bunch of corrupt cops, and a legal system that is built to protect the big, and milk the poor. Whats the other side in this? Feel bad for the 400 million corp with their army of lawyers? Feel bad for the store owners who scammed the person and acted like a total dick? Honestly, whats your take on this?
sylos 5mo ago
The store owner was allowed to sell things on consignment.
- Macha 4mo ago
  Frankly even if the store was on breach of its consignment agreement, that seems like a case corporate would have against the prior owner (and one it would be hard to prove damages in), but not one that would give them any rights to the property of the lego collection owner.
Aurornis 5mo ago
[flagged]
- usehand 5mo ago
  You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
  - Aurornis 5mo ago
    [flagged]
    - usehand 5mo ago
      [flagged]
    - Burj 5mo ago
      If you insist on not watching the "really long youtube videos" youll unfortunately have to settle for taking our word for it There were 10x small claims cases against i believe the single franchise (L2 Bricks LLC iirc) which were won by default and might not stick due to them going chapter 11
  - komali2 5mo ago
    Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
    - usehand 5mo ago
      They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.
- ryandrake 5mo ago
  You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this. All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
aaron695 5mo ago
[dead]
mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago
Yeah, it's textbook theft by conversion
waltwalther 5mo ago
New video from the previous franchise owners gives more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0
rib3ye 5mo ago
The Reckless Ben video is the best thing I've seen on youtube in the last several years.
- itsalwayscults 5mo ago
  We really need an eccentric billionaire going around trolling all sorts of petty legal trolling. Ben is actively making the world a better place with this, and every person with a networth worth a damn is barely a toenail the man he is. I didn't know Ben dealt with cults until he revealed he started the "Scientology Sucks" religion, but as soon as the cops started baiting him into agreeing they had cause for arrest, I instantly guessed he had completely accidentally walked right into another cult corruption video. If I had a penny for the amounts of times I saw this exact type of cult discovery happen, I'd have 4, which is a pattern -> ALL cults are corrupt.
klik99 5mo ago
I read about this previously and had the same reaction - something seems missing, it’s too crazy, this has gotta be just one side of the story. Normal reaction in this media landscape. But this seems to be one of the rare cases that, yes, it really is a case of an edge case of law allowing theft.
Allan76 5mo ago
I believe they think they can get away with it because they have before. This family is linked to a company called Legally Mine, which specializes in legally stealing from people in any way they can, even potential clients. It's insane.

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

underlipton 5mo ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.

yesod 5mo ago

From what I can see: Franchisee entered into a consignment agreement to sell the lego. They were not allowed to do that, so corporate took over the franchise. BUT rather than unwind the agreement and return the lego, they just kept it. Argued for it to be dealt with legally. It was, they lost, so they closed down the store rather than return the lego.

usehand 5mo ago
According to the former franchise owner this is a lie from corporate and they were indeed allowed to sign consignment agreements. They showed a contract that says as much as evidence.
dbeardsl 5mo ago
> They were not allowed to do that Incorrect as the article points out with an image of the contract: > However, it was brought to my attention by site user @luddevig that Chrystal Law, the Bricks & Minifigs Salem-Keizer store's original owner, was able to pull the franchise agreement between her and and the B&M Corperation, that clearly states that consignment is allowed.
- yesod 5mo ago
  Yup, agreed. B&M making every PR screwup you'd expect!
  - abirch 5mo ago
    They hired a PR firm that was looking at the base case and those averages. As Nassim Taleb points out, we live in Extremestan. No idea what the value was of the Bricks and Minifigs, but I'd be shocked if it hasn't dropped by 2 or 4 million dollars. Their biggest moat was their reputation.
sylos 5mo ago
Incorrect.

A_D_E_P_T 5mo ago

It's not that hard to understand. A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager. The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." They sell the goods and keep all of the revenue, rather than just their 10% share. It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. The side with possession and deeper pockets is the side with the leverage, sadly!

iwontberude 5mo ago
This is essentially what is going to happen with Monetary Metals (although I hope not!)
throwaway85825 5mo ago
Theft by conversion.
busterarm 5mo ago
They were actually getting a 35% share. This is pure greed.
gkoberger 5mo ago
It is hard to understand if you only read the blog posted here. They left out a lot of this specificity.
- aaa_aaa 5mo ago
  This is because poster takes sides
  - calgoo 5mo ago
    Yes? Take the side of the person getting railroaded by a giant corporation, a bunch of corrupt cops, and a legal system that is built to protect the big, and milk the poor. Whats the other side in this? Feel bad for the 400 million corp with their army of lawyers? Feel bad for the store owners who scammed the person and acted like a total dick? Honestly, whats your take on this?

sylos 5mo ago

The store owner was allowed to sell things on consignment.

Macha 4mo ago
Frankly even if the store was on breach of its consignment agreement, that seems like a case corporate would have against the prior owner (and one it would be hard to prove damages in), but not one that would give them any rights to the property of the lego collection owner.

Aurornis 5mo ago

[flagged]

usehand 5mo ago
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
- Aurornis 5mo ago
  [flagged]
  - usehand 5mo ago
    [flagged]
  - Burj 5mo ago
    If you insist on not watching the "really long youtube videos" youll unfortunately have to settle for taking our word for it There were 10x small claims cases against i believe the single franchise (L2 Bricks LLC iirc) which were won by default and might not stick due to them going chapter 11
- komali2 5mo ago
  Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
  - usehand 5mo ago
    They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.
ryandrake 5mo ago
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this. All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.

aaron695 5mo ago

[dead]

mx7zysuj4xew 5mo ago

Yeah, it's textbook theft by conversion

waltwalther 5mo ago

New video from the previous franchise owners gives more details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0

rib3ye 5mo ago

The Reckless Ben video is the best thing I've seen on youtube in the last several years.

itsalwayscults 5mo ago
We really need an eccentric billionaire going around trolling all sorts of petty legal trolling. Ben is actively making the world a better place with this, and every person with a networth worth a damn is barely a toenail the man he is. I didn't know Ben dealt with cults until he revealed he started the "Scientology Sucks" religion, but as soon as the cops started baiting him into agreeing they had cause for arrest, I instantly guessed he had completely accidentally walked right into another cult corruption video. If I had a penny for the amounts of times I saw this exact type of cult discovery happen, I'd have 4, which is a pattern -> ALL cults are corrupt.

klik99 5mo ago

I read about this previously and had the same reaction - something seems missing, it’s too crazy, this has gotta be just one side of the story. Normal reaction in this media landscape. But this seems to be one of the rare cases that, yes, it really is a case of an edge case of law allowing theft.

Allan76 5mo ago

I believe they think they can get away with it because they have before. This family is linked to a company called Legally Mine, which specializes in legally stealing from people in any way they can, even potential clients. It's insane.