Update · August 19, 2026
Section 15.C(i) of BAM’s franchise agreement says a terminated franchisee will never, “at any time or in any manner,” identify herself or any business as a current or former Bricks & Minifigs franchisee. BAM has identified its former Salem franchisee by name twice this summer: in its June 4 release, and in the FAQ it published beside the August 19 settlement. The speech term runs in one direction.
PRIMARY SOURCE Every quoted term below is BAM’s own drafting: the franchise agreement filed with its disclosure document and, in this case, as Exhibit B on the Salem docket; Item 20 of the same disclosure document; the November 14, 2024 termination letter, Exhibit D on that docket; the operative complaint’s ¶¶ 61 and 200; and BAM’s June 4 and August 19 publications.
Section 15 of the agreement is titled “Rights and Obligations of the Company and Franchisee upon Termination or Expiration of the Franchise.” Its third part opens: “You agree that, upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, you will:” The first item on the list:
“Not directly or indirectly at any time or in any manner (except with respect to other Bricks & Minifigs® stores owned and operated by you) identify yourself or any business as a current or former Bricks & Minifigs® stores, or as a franchisee, licensee or dealer of us or our Affiliates…”
Three things are in the text. The duration is “at any time”; the clause has no expiration. The only exception is other Bricks & Minifigs stores the franchisee still operates, so the only identity the clause permits is the one BAM licenses. And the prohibited statement includes “former”: not trading on the brand, not using the trademarks, which the same clause separately forbids, but stating the historical fact that you once were a franchisee.
The words appear in every edition of the form this site holds, 2017 through 2026, filed each year with BAM’s disclosure document. Everyone who signed BAM’s standard form in that decade signed them.
The same agreement grades a breach of that clause in advance:
“You and each of your Owners acknowledge that any violation of Sections 9, 13.C(xi), 15.C or 15.D would result in irreparable injury to us for which no adequate remedy at law may be available.”
The section pairs the acknowledgment with its remedy: injunctive relief “without bond,” with “all claims for damages by reason of the wrongful issuance of any injunction being expressly waived,” and with the franchisee’s agreement that any claim she holds against BAM “shall not constitute a defense.” In the form’s own terms, a former franchisee saying she was one is an injury that cannot be compensated, enjoinable in advance, with the defenses waived in the same signature.
BAM’s disclosure document tells prospective buyers this about the people who came before them:
“In some instances, current and former franchisees sign provisions restricting their ability to speak openly about their experience with our franchise system. You may wish to speak with current and former franchisees, but be aware that not all such franchisees will be able to communicate with you. For example, some former franchisees have signed mutual termination and release agreements that prohibit the former franchisees from disparaging us.”
That is BAM’s own Item 20. The document that sells the franchise also discloses that some of the people who left it signed agreements not to speak against it, and that a buyer doing diligence should expect some silence on the reference list.
On the day BAM terminated the Salem franchise “effective immediately,” the letter from its counsel announced that BAM “will be exercising all of its post-termination rights under Section 15 of the Franchise Agreement” and listed the obligations by number. Item 1: $97,393.70 within 15 days. Item 2: liquidated damages for the remaining months of the term. Item 4:
“Cease to identify yourself (either directly or indirectly) as a current or former franchisee, Bricks & Minifigs® store, or licensee or dealer of BAM or our affiliates. See Franchise Agreement, Section 15.C.i.”
Item 13 imposed its covenant “For three years, commencing on today’s date…” The letter closed with one alternative to paying: BAM “is willing to assume ownership of the Salem, OR store, all of BAMF Salem 1’s assets (including but not limited to inventory and fixtures), and a waiver of all claims against BAM.” The store was seized that evening.
The amended complaint pleads that the same letter “also included a proposed ‘Termination Agreement’ containing unconscionable terms,” among them a demand “that Ms. Law agree never to identify herself as a former Bricks & Minifigs franchise owner,” a restriction that “would effectively create a multi-year gap in her professional and employment history.” Plaintiffs refused to sign it (¶ 61).
BAM named her nationally on June 4, in the wire release announcing the Salem store’s closure: “three sets of books being managed by the previous owner Ms. Law/Gorman.” That release is Exhibit J to the operative complaint, which pleads it as defamation (¶ 200). On August 19, beside the settlement announcement, BAM’s FAQ named her again:
“We believe former owner Chrystal Law-Gorman entered into it as a personal, local arrangement and never informed corporate or the incoming franchisee about the consignment arrangement.”
Whether that sentence survives BAM’s own record is checked line by line in a companion entry. The same day’s wire release aimed BAM’s newly acquired claims at the same person: “unauthorized consignment deal by former owner of closed store.”
Read the clause against the naming. Under Section 15.C(i) as written, the former owner of the Salem store may not identify herself as the former owner of the Salem store, at any time, in any manner. The company that drafted that term has identified her exactly that way twice this summer, by name, in its own published statements, the second time in a FAQ that blames her alone for the arrangement behind the loss it had just paid for. The instrument leaves one party free to describe Chrystal Law’s history with Bricks & Minifigs, and it is not Chrystal Law.
The settlement published the same day runs the other way. A companion entry checked the three settlement documents BAM published: no confidentiality clause, no non-disparagement term, no NDA. Bryan Mansell, the man BAM apologized to and paid, is booked to discuss the settlement on camera.
| Bryan Mansell, consignor | Chrystal Law, franchisee | |
|---|---|---|
| Written speech restraint | None in any settlement document BAM published | Never identify as a “current or former” franchisee, no time limit (Section 15.C(i)) |
| How it arrived | After mediation, with payment and an unqualified apology | Printed in the form at signing; ordered in the termination letter (“cease to identify yourself”); demanded again in a proposed termination agreement, never signed |
| Published speech obligation | Toward BAM: “relevant records and testimony in support of BAM’s claims” | None. Hers forbids: never identify |
| Named by BAM in public | “The Mansell family,” in an apology | “Former owner Chrystal Law-Gorman,” blamed alone in the FAQ |
One instrument obligates speech in BAM’s favor, and it arrived with a payment. The other forbids a statement about her own history, and it arrived pre-printed in the form she signed the day she bought the store.
Corrections requested by BAM or its counsel about this entry: none received as of August 19, 2026.
Sources. BAM Franchise Agreement, Sections 15.C and 18.F, filed as an exhibit to BAM’s Franchise Disclosure Document and as Exhibit B in BAMF Salem 1, LLC v. BAM Franchising, Inc., Utah Business & Chancery Court No. 260200029 · Item 20, BAM FDD · Notice of Immediate Termination, November 14, 2024, Exhibit D on the same docket · First Amended Complaint ¶¶ 61 and 200, reported at the amended Salem complaint · BAM’s June 4 release (Exhibit J) and its August 19 FAQ and wire release, archived and hashed on publication day · Companions: An unqualified apology, Choose Your Claim, the FAQ, fact-checked, and Bryan Mansell did not sign an NDA.
The BAM Map is independent reporting on matters of public concern. Nothing here is a finding of any person’s guilt; the civil allegations described are unadjudicated, and every defendant is presumed innocent. Sources are linked so readers can check the record. · Home · Map