TexasRebel said:

---

No, the consigner.

---

Supposedly he did tell them. His son went to the store and told them about the consignment contract and showed it to the new franchisee and asked for the money or the items. The franchisee punted them to corporate who told them to settle it with the franchisee and eventually BAM told the consignee to sue them and see what happens

In writing?
Or just on video edited by a biased sensationalist?

The back and forth with BAM and Mansell (the consignor) had been going on for around 18 months before Reckless Ben ever got involved.

TexasRebel said:

---

In writing?
Or just on video edited by a biased sensationalist?

---

No clue but you think if he had put his claim in an email to corporate it would have made a difference? I don't think so

No no. I mean the B&M reply.

And yes. Delivering the claim in writing with a copy of the contract (notarized hopefully), by certified mail, would be an asset to Mansell.

I agree with B&M that it's an issue to be taken up between the consignor and consignee. At this point it must be $$. The items are sold with the rest of inventory to cover the unpaid dues & such.

TexasRebel said:

---

In writing?
Or just on video edited by a biased sensationalist?

---

He involved a lawyer and sent certified mail.

They were also informed upon taking over the store by the original franchisee.


Corporate and the new franchisee knew what they were doing, it was an intentional act. They did this purposely and told the other parties to sue them if they didnt like it. I'm not sure why this keeps coming up... it was covered in the video and this thread.

TexasRebel said:

---

No no. I mean the B&M reply.

And yes. Delivering the claim in writing with a copy of the contract (notarized hopefully), by certified mail, would be an asset to Mansell.

I agree with B&M that it's an issue to be taken up between the consignor and consignee. At this point it must be $$. The items are sold with the rest of inventory to cover the unpaid dues & such.

---

Im not sure why you are assuming that the original franchisee owed excess money or did anything wrong.

Corporate and the new franchisee has lied multiple times to multiple parties... why would you believe them about this?

From one of the previous videos:

TexasRebel said:

---

No no. I mean the B&M reply.

And yes. Delivering the claim in writing with a copy of the contract (notarized hopefully), by certified mail, would be an asset to Mansell.

I agree with B&M that it's an issue to be taken up between the consignor and consignee. At this point it must be $$. The items are sold with the rest of inventory to cover the unpaid dues & such.

---

I disagree there. I still believe the couple that had their franchise taken away sold a lot of items and didn't pay Mansell and the accounting was a mess when the new owners stepped in.

bonfarr said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

No no. I mean the B&M reply.

And yes. Delivering the claim in writing with a copy of the contract (notarized hopefully), by certified mail, would be an asset to Mansell.

I agree with B&M that it's an issue to be taken up between the consignor and consignee. At this point it must be $$. The items are sold with the rest of inventory to cover the unpaid dues & such.

---

I disagree there. I still believe the couple that had their franchise taken away sold a lot of items and didn't pay Mansell and the accounting was a mess when the new owners stepped in.

---

So youre believing the party(s) that has been caught in multiple lies and changed their story whenever it suited them...rather than the two parties that have been consistent with their story and have made efforts & actions all along the way to make things right.

Bold strategy cotton.

Slwdsm said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

No no. I mean the B&M reply.

And yes. Delivering the claim in writing with a copy of the contract (notarized hopefully), by certified mail, would be an asset to Mansell.

I agree with B&M that it's an issue to be taken up between the consignor and consignee. At this point it must be $$. The items are sold with the rest of inventory to cover the unpaid dues & such.

---

I disagree there. I still believe the couple that had their franchise taken away sold a lot of items and didn't pay Mansell and the accounting was a mess when the new owners stepped in.

---

So youre believing the party(s) that has been caught in multiple lies and changed their story whenever it suited them...rather than the two parties that have been consistent with their story and have made efforts & actions all along the way to make things right.

Bold strategy cotton.

---

No. More than one party can be at fault. Outgoing franchisee in financial distress sells some items and pockets all of the profit rather than give the 65% to the owner as promised because she needed the money. Corporation comes in and handles it all poorly and bullies the actual owner of the items because they thought they could.

Yes, I understand what you're offering as hypothetical... possible, yes, but imo not likely.

Have you watched the videos? Especially the first one?

Iirc, the original franchisee also returned some of the Lego sets that they had in their possession (at home) directly to Mansell (rightful owner).

If they were out to rip off Mansel, why give those pcs back and also bother talking/work with him?

And what makes you feel this story from corporate is trustworthy compared to the other 4 or 5 they've offered previously?

The sensationalized videos edited by a biased party?

Also... if those videos dont go viral (partially due to the sensationalism and stupidity) then none of us are here discussing this... and a major corporation wouldn't be getting put in the spotlight for screwing over an innocent party.

Which "major" corporation?

I imagine the same people using YouTube for news are the ones using Wikipedia for research and WebMD for a GP.

They gave back what they had remaining because it was over. They likely intended to eventually make good to Mansell but they went broke before they could. They no longer had a store to make up the money to pay back what they owed him.

And no I don't believe the story from the company regardless of which version they are spouting. They handled the issue poorly and took the Mansells for granted and have been telling lies to cover themselves from the start.

Bully took toys. Not an adult problem except for an adult with toys. The elephant in the room is the problem of an adult with $200k of toys.

bonfarr said:

---

They gave back what they had remaining because it was over. They likely intended to eventually make good to Mansell but they went broke before they could. They no longer had a store to make up the money to pay back what they owed him.

And no I don't believe the story from the company regardless of which version they are spouting. They handled the issue poorly and took the Mansells for granted and have been telling lies to cover themselves from the start.

---

So your point is that the original franchisee gave back the goods they had "stole" because the only way they could profit off these stolen goods was to sell them at their store?

You serious Clark?

There is way too many NPCs on f16 these days.

there are several people that are so off put by 1 a YouTube guy brought the spotlight and 2 his over the top antics. They cant bring themselves to believe that it was jist that approach that is getting results albeit messy. Without the guy they despise this injustice would have never been brought to light.

This is how the Chicken Ranch got shut down.

Slwdsm said:

---

bonfarr said:

---

They gave back what they had remaining because it was over. They likely intended to eventually make good to Mansell but they went broke before they could. They no longer had a store to make up the money to pay back what they owed him.

And no I don't believe the story from the company regardless of which version they are spouting. They handled the issue poorly and took the Mansells for granted and have been telling lies to cover themselves from the start.

---

So your point is that the original franchisee gave back the goods they had "stole" because the only way they could profit off these stolen goods was to sell them at their store?

You serious Clark?

There is way too many NPCs on f16 these days.

---

Have you ever been involved with supervising someone that runs a retail business? I have for many years and have seen countless times when they skim money to cover a bill with the intention of paying it back.

They were in severe financial distress and likely entered into the consignment with good intentions but when bills need to get paid they slow paid the guy telling herself that when they get caught up they will make him whole. When they lost it all they no longer had a business to sell those Legos so she gives back what she had access to stashed away then told him the store had the rest.

I have had dozens of store managers roll deposits with the same mentality of "as soon as I get caught up I will pay it all back" until they were so deep in the hole they couldn't hide it. I have had managers fake inventory to cover audit losses from theft. People will do all kinds of things to try to prevent getting evicted, their car getting repo'd, the lights getting shut off etc.

But hey you are truly a cerebral giant because you believe 100% of what you see on YouTube. I think there is a lot of truth in the videos but don't necessarily buy the one villain narrative and think there is a lot of fault to spread around with the old man being the only innocent party in that chit show.

you are taking the side of the parties that have been caught lying over and over. Could they have had financial issues. Sure...but if that was the case why did BAM not start out with that? We know the original franchisees wanted to move out of the country. When they let corporate know they were forced out. Then the new franchisees/corporate started using the items from the consignment in ads and promoting the collection. this is not hard to follow if you'd take your bias and set it aside

The long and short of it is that this company is directly telling everyone "you can sue us, but it will cost you more than the legos are worth" instead of actually acting in good faith. In addition, corporate expressly did the run around (it's not us, go to the franchise. No we cannot help you when they tell you it's us, and there's nothing we can or will do to help except deflect).

This story (please just watch it) actually contains audio recordings of the CEO and the franchisees. It is never contested that these recordings are fake, illegitimate, or AI.

Sometimes people are just selfish. And in a resell field based on trust, corporate not being willing to assist or even be transparent means that the innocent franchisees are going to be damaged as well

I don't disagree that corporate acted in an awful and truly stupid manner because they thought they could. I'm sure the CEO guy listened to everything and said something like " so what they can't prove anything" and let his associates that were going to run the franchise do whatever they wanted. Mansell got bullied I think there is no doubt that happened.

I didn't realize how bad reckless Ben stepped in it. When he just needed to get a TRO.

Bonfarr is probably pretty close regarding the original franchisee being in financial distress and not paying Mansell for the most recently sold sets/figures (back in 2024) because of the money situation. Their own YouTube videos even hint at the financial distress when they talk about their own lawsuit against BAM corporate. They were behind on their payments back to corporate, and their claim is corporate actions caused them to be in financial distress.

At least the other franchisees are getting a real close look at the BAM corporate playbook and know to get their ducks in a row before ever mentioning selling the store.

AgBQ-00 said:

---

you are taking the side of the parties that have been caught lying over and over. Could they have had financial issues. Sure...but if that was the case why did BAM not start out with that? We know the original franchisees wanted to move out of the country. When they let corporate know they were forced out. Then the new franchisees/corporate started using the items from the consignment in ads and promoting the collection. this is not hard to follow if you'd take your bias and set it aside

---

Because BAM was not a party to the consignment.

then why did they immediately start marketing it? they took over the store including the consignment

You mean skipping the country when they owe money?

It was inventory they purchased.

and they had been told about it being a consignment. this is on video. it is undeniable that they knew about it and said OK.

They didn't purchase the consignment.

They purchased, then owned, the consigned items.

The former franchisee owes Mansell.

you cant have it both ways. it was either inventory or it wasn't. it was either a consignment or it wasn't. BAM is scum. They knew exactly what was going on and acted like SCUM
when they took over the store they took over the outstanding obligations.

The consignment was between the former franchisee and Mansell.

The items on consignment got purchased along with the rest of the items in the store with a check to the former franchisee/consignor. That's not "both ways".