Comment by artnanika
19 hours ago
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.
Oregon case law comes off looking terrible here. Who would want to do business in this environment?
3 replies →
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'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.
The store declares bankruptcy, and corporate is a prioritized creditor. From a certain view, based on the consignment contract means they wanted money, and I could see an argument that they're really owed $200k rather than the physical legos. Ie they're effectively just another creditor, and probably not a prioritized one.
"Ownership" gets very odd when you hand goods over to someone with the expectation that you'll never see those goods again, but will get money. It gets even weirder when that someone ceases to be a legal entity, and the goods are now in possession of someone you never had an agreement with. 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.
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.
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 agreement is null and void except for this part that works in my favour"
Would a simple audit not completely destroy this case?
"How did you acquire these sets?"
"Uhm... don't know they just appeared out of nowhere"
Straight to jail.
It goes more like:
"How did you acquire these sets?"
"We acquired them from the previous franchisee when we purchased the store. Here's the contract we signed to acquire the store and contents, here's the payment we made"
"Okay thanks that checks out"
There wasn't a signed contract with the previous franchisee from what I can see.
And even then, the trail audit goes further as the previous franchisee didn't have a proof of purchase of $200k of inventory.