The best part about this is that the CEO insists that the agreement with the previous store owner is null (thus relieving him of the burden of paying 200k), and yet he also insists on keeping the Lego collection set and selling it. It's comical.
From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much.
Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems irrelevant here.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.
I watched a video from a lawyer who was explaining some of the legal aspects of this debacle, and this one stuck out. Basically, if the Mansells had filed a form with the Oregon Secretary of State, they would have a much simpler claim. That form basically just says "X company is holding Y merchandise that is mine for consignment". Because they (likely) didn't do that, the process for determining their ownership may be more complicated in certain events, and closure of the store might be on that list. Reasons the new owners and BAM corporate are screwed:
1) they made statements during the seizure of the store that they are aware of the consignment and that will transfer to them
2) they were made aware of the consignment in writing by Mansell in a letter terminating the agreement and demanding return of the merchandise after a missed payment in Nov 2025
3) they sold a set from Mansell's collection after 1 & 2 to one of Mansell's confederates
4) they knowingly removed stickers placed on the collection by the previous store owner to identify it as part of the collection
Even if the consignment was undone, they don't get to just keep the collection. The agreement can almost certainly be terminated, but the collection would then be returned to Mansell.
I believe that's the one thing BAM refuses to acknowledge, they have no legal possesion of the lego sets, that's the beginning and end of it. They are trying their damnest to hide that fact behind a consignment/contract/franchise/corporate/arrests/heroin/lawsuit curtain of smoke.
I don't know how effective the wording of the original consignment agreement would end up if tested in a suit. It reads "Consigned merchandise shall remain the property of Mansell until sold".
On the other hand, without the agreement, how can one prove the expectation that the goods were handed over with, at all? Without establishing that expectation wouldn't the ownership of the goods just stay with the original owner at all times?
It would make sense that there are some ways you can abandon property you own in a way that someone else can swoop up and take ownership it without having to give it back, but do any of those potentially apply here?
> The store obviously has an obligation to hand over either money or the goods, but it's not clear that obligation is transient to anyone that ends up with the goods.
It is extremely clear. You are just detailing the buffer being used to pretend otherwise.
For a guy like him, 200k is probably no big deal. Instead of doing the right and easy to do thing, he is instead deciding to drag out this whole ordeal. Really says a lot about the guys character.
It's not even paying 200k. It's returning the sets that haven't been sold. They hadn't paid for the sets, they just hold them in stock until they're sold
This is a misrepresentation.... They acquired the contract that held those sets, not the sets directly. The "ownership" of the sets was with the original owner. The set owner entered into an agreement with the shop to pay them for shelf space to advertise the sets for sale.
They were essentially "on-loan" or "borrowed". At no point in time was the ownership was ever transferred to the shop. Possession != ownership
Yes it's a misrepresentation and that's the whole point.
If B&M misrepresent things to the auditor it's unlikely they'll detect this. The auditor for B&M would not have access to the original contract between the previous owner of the store and the owner of the sets.
Audits just aren't that detailed. They might pick a few sample transactions or sample products to check in depth but every set in every store? Definitely not.
The comment I replied to insinuated an audit would lead straight to jail and I find that extremely unlikely. The likely outcome is a signed off audit, like at WireCard, ENRON, and WorldCom.
Germany has sent people to jail for calling what's going in Gaza a genocide, despite the majority of genocide scholars and human rights groups all saying it's a genocide.
This proposal is less about verifiable facts and more about the German government forcing its narrative on its populace.
It's part of the scam, they actually want the AfD to later have that power so that they can say "Hey, look at what these fascists are doing, vote us back with urgency to prevent more fascism".
Win-win for the CDU/CSU and the AfD, the CDU gains power and has a boogeyman to use to scare voters into voting for them.
What a bizarre thing to say, concentration camps during the Holocaust also had swimming pools and soccer fields (for the inmates as well), does that prove the Holocaust is a hoax? Swimming pools, soccer fields, and 5k events do not disprove ongoing genocides.
reply