https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-bryan-recover-his-lego-collection

"Final message".

TexasRebel said:

---

Consigners sell things they don't own regularly.

So do realtors.

---

My position is that the sale is not complete until the rightful owner is paid.

In the case of real estate, am I wrong?

What is the difference between real estate and legos in this instance?

TexasRebel said:

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

---

Do you even know what you are talking about here?

Do you know what conversion means? It means that BAM illegally took the Legos. It is basically corporate theft that doesn't use a gun or break in to take something that isn't theirs.

If BAM illegally took the Legos from the consignor, then the consignee doesn't have a claim against the firm that illegally took the Legos?

Looks like he was hit with a TRO. No idea why the kid hasn't hired a lawyer yet. But no more 1st amendment for Ben. Utah has strong antislapp laws, but the federal courts don't recognize them.

But if BAM paid for the consigned items…

TexasRebel said:

---

But if BAM paid for the consigned items…

---

To my knowledge, BAM has not claimed that

BusterAg said:

---

TexasRebel said:

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

---

Do you even know what you are talking about here?

Do you know what conversion means? It means that BAM illegally took the Legos. It is basically corporate theft that doesn't use a gun or break in to take something that isn't theirs.

If BAM illegally took the Legos from the consignor, then the consignee doesn't have a claim against the firm that illegally took the Legos?

---

I think they're really big on conversion in Utah.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Looks like he was hit with a TRO. No idea why the kid hasn't hired a lawyer yet. But no more 1st amendment for Ben. Utah has strong antislapp laws, but the federal courts don't recognize them.

---

You would think they would have some of those murder and bomb threats on video or at least audio. Not that I believe he made those threats.

TexasRebel said:

---

But if BAM paid for the consigned items…

---

Let's look at the quote:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

---

Do you even know what you are talking about here?

Do you know what conversion means? It means that BAM illegally took the Legos. It is basically corporate theft that doesn't use a gun or break in to take something that isn't theirs.

If BAM illegally took the Legos from the consignor, then the consignee doesn't have a claim against the firm that illegally took the Legos?

---

If BAM paid for the consigned items, then the items were not converted by BAM, were they?

If BAM paid for the items from the consignor.

What did you mean by this:

Quote:

---

The way I read that, Mansell only has a complaint with the franchisee since the items were "converted"

---

1) Who converted the items?
2) How did they convert them?
3) Why is the complaint mentioning the conversion?
4) Who is complaining?
5) Who was wronged by the conversion?
6) If the items were converted, did BAM pay for them?

BAM converted the consigned items to inventory by purchasing the consignment in the buyout to cover the ex-franchisee debt. The consigner still has to pay the consignee.

Was it handled properly? Not without an independent appraisal of the items or at least specifically telling anyone that's what the plan was.

TexasRebel said:

---

BAM converted the consigned items to inventory by purchasing the consignment in the buyout to cover the ex-franchisee debt. The consigner still has to pay the consignee.

Was it handled properly? Not without an independent appraisal of the items or at least specifically telling anyone that's what the plan was.

---

Not how it works, and if that was what happened then BAM and the new franchisee would have been claiming that. They are not and never have. That said, BAM cannot purchase the consignment to cover the original franchisee debt because the consignment is not the property of the original franchisee. Only the consignment *contract* belonged to original franchisee, and that contract conveyed with the franchise. That contract is itself not an asset to cover debt either, because it is merely a right to sell and take a cut. It has no book value unless and until a sale is made.

The consignment contract was tied to the franchise and went along with it to BAM and then the new franchisees when BAM forced the seizure and sale. BAM cannot buy the consignment items from the original franchisees and have them pay Mansell his share because BAM, in taking over the franchise, became the contract holder and consignee. They took over all assets and liabilities, including any outstanding payments to Mansell for previous sales (he was paid on a monthly basis for any sales in the previous month) and the right to sell the remaining consignment for a share of the sale price. If they wanted to convert the consignment to inventory, they would have had to have bought it from themselves at market price and paid Mansell because the original franchisees were no longer a party to the consignment contract.

And we know this is how everyone saw it, or at least should have. In the video of the handoff of accounts in the store when BAM's agent showed up to take possession of everything, they were told by the original franchisee, "I still owe him money," because sets had been sold but the regular agreed upon payment date had not come yet. Once BAM and the new franchisee took possession of the store and accounts, "I still owe him money," turned into, "You owe him money," which they agreed to on camera in that conversation. At no point did BAM or the new franchisees ever pay for the consignment.

TexasRebel said:

---

BAM converted the consigned items to inventory by purchasing the consignment in the buyout to cover the ex-franchisee debt. The consigner still has to pay the consignee.

Was it handled properly? Not without an independent appraisal of the items or at least specifically telling anyone that's what the plan was.

---

Converted has a legal definition in the state of Utah.

That word converted. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Nice soft open before switching to the topic. Dude got a little nervous in the middle

If he would stop being an idiot and actually get an attorney (and I do believe an attorney would take this case at a big discount or pro bono) he could probably get the TROs lifted. But he won't. He's being stupid.

Of course it does.
The indigenous bricks were forced to become Catholic or be tortured. What other definition of convert could possibly exist.

I accept.

As entertaining as this whole drama is, it is also a fascinating case study in the franchise business model.

Several posts in this thread have demonstrated how tight the franchise contracts are, and for the parent company it is about protecting the brand at all costs. Only here instead of a rogue franchise operator, the parent company appears to be directly involved in dishonest activity.

They are crapping in their own bed and damaging the company brand nationwide. Everyone knows BAM is the company that took advantage of an elderly old man and his valuable Lego collection.

It also highlights the difference between a publicly traded company with shareholders and a privately owned company where one man calls the shots with no checks and balances.

In a large publicly traded company you would have a large number of people from multiple departments interacting in a decision and someone would interject some sanity into the company's actions. In BAM's case you have one guy who rules the roost and I doubt anyone around him felt bold enough to tell him he was wrong.

ErnestEndeavor said:

---

If he would stop being an idiot and actually get an attorney (and I do believe an attorney would take this case at a big discount or pro bono) he could probably get the TROs lifted. But he won't. He's being stupid.

---

Some people are simply who they appear to be. In this case..."Reckless" Ben.

I guess you could say he's a few bricks short of a complete Lego set.


I'll see myself out now.

The whole thing seems to kind of go along with his channel MO.

Reckless Ben has been pretty open about not being able to afford proper legal services.

How BAM was originally founded