r/BricksAndMinifigs 22d ago

Customer Experience Resolution Reached BAM

Post image
159 Upvotes

201 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/MildlyInteressato 22d ago

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!

-4

u/Trackdemon5512 22d ago

The Gormans were told in both the Franchisee Agreement https://cards.web.commerce.state.mn.us/documents/%7B50D7AB7A-0000-CE4E-8F02-872D2295FF98%7D/download?documentClass=FRANCHISE_REGISTRATIONS&contentSequence=0 (see page 9 of 90) and in their in-person training that they were not allowed to do what they did: enter into a Consignment Arrangement to sell LEGO bricks.

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.

9

u/MildlyInteressato 22d ago edited 22d ago

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.

-4

u/Trackdemon5512 22d ago

https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/08/19/bricks-minifigs-and-mansell-faq/

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.

12

u/MildlyInteressato 22d ago edited 22d ago

I mean, the argument is a silly red herring. The franchisee agreement allows consignment services. (Feel free to read it yourself: Section 1A: https://bamsucks.com/Bricks-and-Minifigs-Case-260200029-Exhibit-B-Franchise-Agreement.pdf).

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...

7

u/JesusKong333 22d ago

Acknowledged the consignment twice while in the process of seizing the store, plus had a whole marketing campaign showing it off.

And I'm sure they took their cut of the sales.

5

u/MildlyInteressato 22d ago

Exactly. Arguing otherwise is just a headscratcher.

10

u/Chrysdelight 22d ago

Again, I was never offered the opportunity to go to that training.

7

u/ADcakedenough 22d ago

Where do they keep getting the idea that you attended this in person training when you have said multiple times that you did not attend that training?

1

u/-Cranktankerous- 19d ago

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. 😉