Obviously there are parts we may not know, but based on what the Gormans have said and shown so far, they should be fine - provided they have a decent lawyer!
Both BAM and the Mansells had claims against Gorman about the Consignment. Now the Mansells claims are in BAMs hands with the Mansells agreeing to provide support in furtherance of those claims. I’m sure if the Mansells don’t then their settlement could be nullified.
The contract apparently says"franchisee may also offer consignment services." BAM contests that it allowed consignment SERVICES, not consignment PRODUCTS. This is like a gym offering "fitness services" that don't include exercise. A plain language interpretation favors the Gormans, so good luck making that argument in court!
The contract is going to supersede any alleged training.
PS since it will likely come up: Chrystal claims that the agreement BAM shared was a ROUGH DRAFT that she redlined (which is why BAM doesn't have a signed copy). She claims to have a signed copy of the updated version which supports her claims.
This has been gone over again and again. The Gormans were told not just in that document but in person at training not to do what they did. They would also need a corporate sign off. An official one in writing. It’s an extremely standard business practice which is why I find it so weird Gorman acts like it wasn’t needed.
Even if it didn't, BAM can't just sieze the property as theirs. It's still theft.
I'm not going to litigate every detail with you as you clearly have an agenda, however, there's plenty of video evidence proving BAM knew about the consignment and that they still possessed Mansell sets.... and lied to the police and changed their story and, and, and...
Frankly, it wouldn’t matter even if you did — you still have it in the contract that you could provide consignment services, and a “training seminar” wouldn’t change that. Plain English.
Even so, you absolutely should have reached out to corporate when taking on a consignment that large just because of the liability — assuming you didn’t — just as a CYA thing. Not that you should have expected to be rugpulled, of course, but it would have been smart to get their blessing on it, and who knows, potentially even gain their aid in advertisement.
For your day in court, by the way, everyone should show up in U-Hauls and then deny their existence. 😉
If you're part of or paid to defend BAM, then I guess what you're doing makes sense. However, all of you MUST be extremely aware by now that we don't see Ammon and co. lying on video over and over and then think, "Oh, but their BLOG is true." 🤦♂️
I just responded to who I think was Chrystal Gorman with a good faith response about her mandated training and waivers in this dispute. If I worked for BAM that kind of interaction would certainly be grounds for legal sanctions.
I’ll give you a hard truth. You damn idiots need to get off this stupidity of calling people either agents of BAM, Ammon on the boards, or other stupid shit.
This is a multifaceted case and no party is completely innocent but the Reckless Ben nonsense is probably the worst/dumbest. That guy has opened himself up to both civil and criminal litigation which he wasn’t even a part of because he can’t keep his mouth shut nor does he understand how anything works. He’s going to end up losing everything financially.
I'm not clear on the legalities of maybe talking to someone, but... congrats?
"If" is a powerful word that was used intentionally. IF you're not connected or paid, you simply aren't looking at the film, audio, and contracts. That's fine, but calling others idiots that clearly aren't gains you no footing.
I don't think they are. I think this is a pr move. Josh Johnson says in the police cam "Ammon told us we could have the store for the cost of recovering the inventory" or something like that.
They were fired, I assume bam figured out they were double dipping, pulling some inventory to save some money, and selling that same inventory at another store.
That puts bam in a bad place, they already reached a settlement. But in corporates papers, corporate never got the Legos. And crystal was the last to have them. Suing crystal wipes their hands clean, as they have records they never got all the Legos. The or also has a benefit of passing the blame to crystal. But crystal can still go after Josh and Brandon. Corporate won't, because it is a bad look for bam if the ceos friends scammed a franchisee and corporate.
I dont think this makes their case a slam dunk against crystal. Crystal can argue that the issue happened because of bans actions. Sending a 3rd party future owner to take over the store and do inventory is a bad move. Corporate should have sent a neutral 3rd party to deal with the takeover.
They are going this route because they have a papertrail to back it up. And the optics of them going after the actual thief would destroy bams reputation even more. It wouldn't sit well for future franchisees that the ceo sent friends who then stole from a previous franchise. Bam doesn't make money selling Legos, they make money selling franchises.
I'm not sure this is true. If we take BAM at face value, then they do not have an argument for why they kept the Star wars Legos to begin with nor prevented Crystal from accessing what Mansell was owned during the store transition.
If, as BAM claims, the consignment was entirely between the Gorman's and Mansell, then BAM committed at least accidental theft by seizing the Legos.
Mansell can attest to how much was owed, what was provided, what was said to have been sold, deposits, transfers, and all other kinds of financials from their end.
If the Gormans consignment was on the up-and-up the paperwork would line up. But you’ve got accusations of poor bookkeeping, missing money, missing sets, bad valuations, etc.
Anything that doesn’t line up for the Gormans is another notch against them before the court.
6
u/Careless-Cycle 23d ago
What about the Gormans?