Much of the online narrative centers on a private consignment arrangement allegedly made at the former Salem store. Bricks & Minifigs Corporate (BAM Franchising, Inc.) says it was not a party to that alleged agreement, did not sign, approve, or authorize it, and that such consignment deals are expressly prohibited under franchise agreements. The statement also says the issue involved a local, private arrangement rather than a corporate-approved one.

The actual origin of this dispute lies in an unauthorized, local consignment arrangement between an independent former franchisee of the Salem, Oregon store and a consignor who provided a large collection of LEGO® products for resale. This was a private agreement made solely between those two parties. Bricks & Minifigs Corporate (BAM Franchising, Inc.) was not a party to this consignment, did not authorize it, and was not involved in its terms or execution.

Brick Fanatics reports that Bricks & Minifigs “has issued a public response to the ongoing dispute over a LEGO collection reportedly worth $200,000 involving its former Salem, Oregon franchise owner.” The article states that Bricks & Minifigs’ position is that “the collection in question was part of a private consignment arrangement between the consignor and the former franchisee, and that corporate was not a party to that agreement.” It also notes that the company “stressed that franchisees are independently owned and operated, and that any such private consignment deal would have been unauthorized under its franchise agreements.”

At the heart of the situation is a consignment-style deal struck between Mansell and the then-franchisee of the Salem Bricks & Minifigs location. Under the agreement, Mansell’s father’s Star Wars sets would be sold through the store, with profits shared. After corporate took over the store and the franchise changed hands, Mansell says he struggled to recover the full collection or compensation. In statements posted online, Bricks & Minifigs has described the issue as a private consignment dispute involving a former franchise operator and stressed that corporate was not a party to the agreement.

KOIN reports that in a written statement, “Bricks & Minifigs said the controversy involved ‘a private consignment arrangement between the consignor and a former franchise operator’ and that corporate ‘was not a party to this agreement.’” The company’s statement, as quoted, further stresses that “franchisees are independent small-business owners” and that the franchisor “cannot automatically inherit responsibility for private agreements” those owners may have made. The newscast notes that this description by Bricks & Minifigs contrasts with the plaintiff’s view that corporate became involved when it assumed control of the store’s assets.

The piece says the dispute centers on a Star Wars LEGO collection and reports that consignment is not part of Bricks and Minifigs' authorized franchise model. It frames the controversy as arising from a local store arrangement connected to former owners, not from a corporate sale or corporate-owned inventory.

In Bricks & Minifigs’ own statement, which they posted and I’m reading here, they say: "Much of the online narrative centers around a private consignment arrangement allegedly made by a former Salem store." They go on to clarify that Bricks & Minifigs corporate was not a party to this alleged agreement, nor were subsequent franchisees who took ownership of the Salem location after the former owners were removed. The company frames the core issue as a consignment dispute with that former franchise operator, not as corporate stealing LEGO sets.

One commenter summarises the corporate position as described in the blog post under discussion: “it seems like the parent company is saying the unsold sets have been returned but the money is theirs because the store owed them money.” The discussion references the Bricks & Minifigs blog note about the Salem store, which describes the issue as arising from a consignment arrangement tied to the former franchisee, and debates whether corporate or the former franchise operator bears responsibility. The thread reflects public understanding that Bricks & Minifigs portrays the dispute as involving a consignment deal made at the franchise level, rather than a corporate-level transaction.

This commentary video reads from Bricks & Minifigs’ statement: “Much of the online narrative centers on a private consignment arrangement allegedly made at the former Salem store. It is vital to understand that Bricks & Minifigs Corporate, BAM Franchising Incorporated, was not a party to this alleged agreement nor were subsequent franchisees who took on the ownership of the Salem location.” The reader notes that corporate also says: “Corporate did not sign, approve, or authorize this arrangement and in fact, such consignment deals are expressly prohibited under our franchise agreements.”

Bricks & Minifigs is a U.S. Lego resale franchise system in which individual stores are typically locally owned and operated. In franchise disputes, franchisors often distinguish between corporate policy and agreements made by local franchisees, especially where a private consignment arrangement is alleged.

Users discussing the case refer to Bricks & Minifigs’ statement that the consignment was a deal with a former franchisee: one poster writes that the company’s position is that “this was between the family and the previous owner and BAM corporate had nothing to do with it.” Another summarizes that Bricks & Minifigs is saying the arrangement was made by the former Salem store owner, not corporate, and that consignment deals are not allowed under the franchise agreement. These posts are paraphrasing the company’s public statement about a ‘private consignment arrangement’ with a former operator.

Covering the controversy, the article describes the company’s response: “In a written statement, Bricks & Minifigs insisted that the Lego stash at the center of Reckless Ben’s video was tied to ‘a private consignment arrangement allegedly made by a former Salem store operator.’ The firm stressed that ‘Bricks & Minifigs corporate was not a party to this alleged agreement,’ adding that consignment deals of this type are ‘expressly prohibited under our franchise agreements.’ The company characterized the dispute as between the family and the former franchisee rather than the wider chain.”

The video says Bricks & Minifigs stated that corporate was not party to the alleged consignment agreement and that the deal was privately arranged between the former owners and the consignor. It also says the franchise company denied authorizing the arrangement and described it as an unauthorized private consignment deal involving the former franchise operators.

In the text of the corporate statement shared here, Bricks & Minifigs says that "the reality of the consignment claim" is that it originated from "a private consignment arrangement allegedly made at the former Salem store." The statement continues that franchisees operate independent businesses and that the franchisor does not automatically become responsible for such private, unauthorised agreements a local owner may enter into.

The video says Bricks and Minifigs Corporate denied authorizing the original consignment agreement and described the situation as involving a former store operator. It presents the controversy as a dispute over a local franchisee’s actions rather than a corporate-entered transaction.

Daily Mail’s coverage recounts part of the statement: “Bricks & Minifigs insisted that the controversy was being misrepresented online and said it involved ‘a private consignment arrangement allegedly made by a former Salem store owner.’ The company said it ‘did not sign, approve, or authorize this arrangement’ and that it fell outside what is allowed under its franchise rules. Corporate stressed that it was not a party to the consignment agreement.” This is presented as the firm’s official description of the underlying disagreement.

A commenter summarizes the company’s counterclaim as saying the consignment deal was unauthorized and that it was arranged by the franchise operator rather than corporate. This is secondary, informal commentary rather than primary evidence, but it reflects how the dispute is being characterized in public discussion.