alt Hacker NewsI'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
Replies
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.
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.
New video from the previous franchise owners gives more details:
The store owner was allowed to sell things on consignment.
The Reckless Ben video is the best thing I've seen on youtube in the last several years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc has a good overview.
Yeah, it's textbook theft by conversion
[dead]
> And it seems like the parent company is saying the sets are theirs because the store owed them money, while the Mansells are (correctly) saying consignment means they own the sets, not the franchise.
I read down to where they linked to the store's statement. They said that there's evidence that most of the collection was moved off-site in the past. They said they tried to locate what they could from the inventory list and offer it back, but the person believes they have more.
So yeah, I think there's more to the story. I don't think we're going to get it from the YouTuber making hours of content for it, though.
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!