Oh. YouTube drama.

Legally, it's one of those Uniform Commercial Code things that was worked out many decades ago - the rights of a consignor in a business transfer.[1] This is a routine problem with standard answers.

[1] https://uslawexplained.com/consignor

In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?

> He also didn't leave after the police were called, which is not all that unusual for someone who looks out their window and sees someone they're in conflict with has traveled across the country to stand in front of their door.

> This is just needless YouTube drama generation. I agree, he should have paid a process server to do the job correctly, but that wouldn't be good business for his YouTube channel.

Your ability to create a fantasy to defend the CEOs in this example is, well, frankly depressing. Like, none of what you said is true, but you just confidently made it up and then put it in a comment, why?

If you don't know what's going on, why comment? Why go beyond that and just make stuff up?

I just don't get people today.

The company should have done the right thing, but instead, they are evil, criminals, and crooks who should be treated as such.

> he should have paid a process server

He was quoted a LOT more money to try.

> He also didn't leave after the police were called,

He was legally allowed to be there trying to serve the individual.

Why are you defending a clearly evil criminal company?