[crazygringo]

> Then Bricks & Minifigs Corporate took control of the Salem location from the original franchise owner

> They were found liable in court. They closed the store rather than pay.

This doesn't make any sense. If the corporation took control of the franchise, the corporation now owns it and its obligations. They can close the store if they want, but that doesn't do anything about their obligation to pay.

What's missing from this story? Because as presented, it makes no sense.

[abirch]

I believe what is missing is a Brick and Minifig's attorney with a law degree.

This is why you shouldn't buy a business for 1 dollar because you can inherit its debts.

[hedora]

If they were smart, they took the "inventory" as payment for some imaginary debt, bankrupting the store without taking ownership of it.

Hopefully, the courts will see through that tactic, and add a contempt charge on top of all the civil penalties.

[jasonfarnon]

do we know the debt is "imaginary"? Was this inventory seized in satisfaction of some debt.

[ChrisRR]

I don't think they won in court, B&M just didn't respond so it went to a default judgement

[KomoD]

> B&M just didn't respond so it went to a default judgement

So they won.

[ChrisRR]

They didn't win in court is what I said

[KomoD]

The default judgment was a court decision, so yes, they did.

[AntonyGarand]

It is my understanding that they sued the franchise, which then closed, and not the parent corporate entity.

While they won against the franchise due to the default judgement, they didn't win against corporate. The store that is now closed is the franchise they sued.

[smcl]

This entire story started because the corporation took control of the franchise though

[fastball]

Fairly certain it was actually someone affiliated with corporate who took over the franchise, but it is still a franchisee.