| ▲ | A_D_E_P_T 2 hours ago |
| It's not that hard to understand. A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager. The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." They sell the goods and keep all of the revenue, rather than just their 10% share. It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. The side with possession and deeper pockets is the side with the leverage, sadly! |
|
| ▲ | prophesi 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Corporate is also claiming that they don't allow stores to take on consignment deals, contrary to their franchise agreement explicitly allowing franchise owners to take on consignment deals. |
| |
| ▲ | munk-a an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I have absolutely no doubts a court would consider it impossible to transfer goods under consignment to a different entity free of the burden of the consignment contract. So the corporation trying to reach into the franchise to grab these goods without honoring the contract is absolute BS and they should be dragged through the mud over it. The unfortunate loophole here is that, potentially, by shutting down that franchise in a bankruptcy the corporation may end up being preferred for being made whole on debts relative to the consigner. Bankruptcy is complicated so while I am pretty sure any remaining goods from the consignment would be returned to the original owner the proceeds from sales that were successfully made might end up in the pocket of the corporation. Personally, I absolutely loathe consignment. It is an incredibly complex agreement with a lot of weird edge cases about deprecation of goods and the duty to seek a good price that get complex quick. If you have goods like this and can find a store that will buy your goods in bulk you should be very careful in considering how much you care about the price difference between that bulk price and the percentage they list for consignment. A single transaction is usually much cleaner and easier for both sides and in this case (trying to pay for medical costs) having the money immediately can be quite attractive. | | |
| ▲ | BobAliceInATree 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem with consignment is that the consignor wants the maximum price but the consignee wants a quick sale because 10% of a few bucks more means very little and they have to hold the inventory. | | |
| ▲ | munk-a 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yup, if I worked in a field where consignment was an option I'd refuse to do it - it's a huge headache. So I'd absolutely believe that the corporation has a policy against accepting consignment offers and might have a case to recover damages or something against the original franchisee. But the way they've handled this situation still appears to be atrocious. Lets say you consigned 200k at a 10% commission, 50k sold under the original franchisee and you were paid 30k already. If the franchise transferred and the company wanted out there should be an exit[1] in the contract to pay the additional 15k and then return the goods to the original owner. I think it's important to remember this sort of an option was always on the table. 1. Even if the original consignment contract was poorly drawn up without a clear exit clause I think it'd be reasonable to expect a resolution somewhere close to this in mediation. |
| |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | In bankrupty a court appointed liquidator can seize assets and sell them to repay creditors. Of course none of this happened here. | | |
| ▲ | jimnotgym 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | They can't sieze consignment stock though?!? | | |
| ▲ | munk-a 13 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | "Can't" is a really bad word to use and I am not certain if "they" here are the corporation or the bankruptcy steward I'd mentioned. If you're talking about the corporation I think that any sensible neutral party would probably come down on the side that the corporation has no entitlement to those goods. If you're talking about the bankruptcy steward then the goods were held by the franchise so if it went through bankruptcy those goods would be under consideration by the steward - I think they'd usually find that the original owner should be entitled to the goods since they're relatively non-fungible. The proceeds from sold goods are likely a more complicated answer since money is fungible and divisible. I could accept that there would be scenarios where a steward would think that the corporation should recover a portion of the proceeds. | |
| ▲ | throwaway85825 19 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | The court can do almost anything. Its happened before. https://www.cozen.com/news-resources/publications/2020/is-yo... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | askbjoernhansen an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | The (former) franchise owner shared their contract with BAM that explicitly allowed consignments. |
|
|
| ▲ | gkoberger 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It is hard to understand if you only read the blog posted here. They left out a lot of this specificity. |
|
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Forgive me if I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. I just read the linked blog and some of the links within, but I don't have time to watch all these long YouTube videos > The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. The store says the full inventory was not discoverable at the store. They said the person gave a written statement in the past saying the collection was "moved off site for security reasons" so I don't think this is really as cut and dry as the YouTuber and blogger people are trying to make it look. > Corporate says, "this is mine now" Their statement says they located what inventory they could and offered it back. I think there's a lot more to this story. I wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story. |
| |
| ▲ | axus an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. Seems there's some reason the liability from the lawsuit doesn't transfer to the corporation. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story. Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's starting to look like the lawsuit was against the former owners, contrary to the ragebait "Bricks and Minifigs stole..." title | | |
| |
| ▲ | usehand an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases? | | |
| ▲ | shadefinale an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear. | | |
| ▲ | usehand an hour ago | parent [-] | | A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win? | | |
| ▲ | altairprime an hour ago | parent [-] | | [retracted] | | |
| ▲ | usehand 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima. | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Ooh, I missed that! I thought I’d watched it a couple days ago but I might have dozed off due to unrelated life tired; will revisit, thanks. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who is "they"? Bricks and Minifigs? Or the previous owners? Do you mind citing your sources at least? The linked article refers to a "lawsuit loss" but doesn't explain who it was against or what it was for. | | |
| ▲ | usehand 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As I said in my other reply to you, you go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. Maybe you should refrain from doing so if you don't know anything about it. I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. If you are too stupid to find basic info on a notorious case, again, maybe refrain from talking about shit you know nothing about. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > You go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying the claims don't line up > I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. Everything I quoted was from me looking it up! | | |
| ▲ | usehand 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties. Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | singpolyma3 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As soon as there is a shred of dispute every theft becomes a contract dispute |
|
| ▲ | warumdarum 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Lucky though, you can find somebody with deep pockets to step in and take his share of the case should you win. |
|
| ▲ | consumer451 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have heard of the same thing happening with fancy used car dealerships, where cars that were to be sold on consignment have been lost. |
| |
|
| ▲ | psygn89 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a gofundme I would gladly donate to. Fight the power for what's right. |
| |
| ▲ | fhn an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, but you don't know the whole story. There was a young motorcyclists who ran from the police and killed in a crashed. His family has a go-fund me still just to collect money. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | throwaway85825 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Theft by conversion. |
|
| ▲ | busterarm 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They were actually getting a 35% share. This is pure greed. |
|
| ▲ | scotty79 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute. What if he reported theft? Wouldn't they have to prove how did they come into possession of the goods they are selling? |
| |
|
| ▲ | fortran77 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > It's not that hard to understand. FWIW, I couldn't follow it either from the blog. |
|
| ▲ | iwontberude 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| This is essentially what is going to happen with Monetary Metals (although I hope not!) |
