@MagiBlackChaos@TheFlynnRider Correct. Who owned the LEGO? That’s the only thing that matters. The original consignment contract, in my opinion, makes it clear that the LEGO remained the property of Mansell until sold.
Seems cut and dry to me.
The only facts that matters are these.
The LEGO were legally consigned to the previous owners.
BAM had a legal right to collect all inventory of the previous owners when they defaulted on their franchise.
The consigned LEGO were not the legal property or inventory of the previous owners and therefore title could not be transferred by the previous owners, or confiscated from them during default.
The new owners took title and possession of property that could not be transferred to them.
End of story.
@MSandige@LEGO_Group No they can’t. It has nothing to do with them, and because there is no connection to BAM at all they have no leverage to do anything.
I really don’t know what you expect them to do. Make a strongly worded public statement with no teeth??
I’m….not conflating anything. You said:
“if Ben is costing them massive amounts of money, causing reputational damage, then the logical step here is to take Ben to court.”
I simply pointed out, that they are taking him to court.
And just because BAMs case against Ben isn’t specifically about ownership, that fact does not mean their case won’t get there. Sometimes cases are brought about one thing just to prove another. It’s a common strategy in civil court to only play the cards you have to.
Like bring a case for harassment knowing full well that the defendant will bring up the ownership issue. Then you present proof of ownership to prove the harassment. Civil court is a chess game.
That said…I’m rooting for Ben.
B&M is suing them. You have to remember that the “evidence” we’ve seen in the last week is itself weeks or months old.
Ben has a current civil case against him filed in Utah for Civil RICO. The original franchise owners have an open suit against B&M.
So…there’s a lot going on, that we haven’t seen yet.