Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

mybricklog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 704 posts

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#221

Post by jonlucc »

shadefinale wrote: post #41
artnanika wrote: post #4

The best part about this is that the CEO insists that the agreement with the previous store owner is null (thus relieving him of the burden of paying 200k), and yet he also insists on keeping the Lego collection set and selling it. It's comical.

From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much. Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems…

I watched a video from a lawyer who was explaining some of the legal aspects of this debacle, and this one stuck out. Basically, if the Mansells had filed a form with the Oregon Secretary of State, they would have a much simpler claim. That form basically just says "X company is holding Y merchandise that is mine for consignment". Because they (likely) didn't do that, the process for determining their ownership may be more complicated in certain events, and closure of the store might be on that list. Reasons the new owners and BAM corporate are screwed: 1) they made statements during the seizure of the store that they are aware of the consignment and that will transfer to them 2) they were made aware of the consignment in writing by Mansell in a letter terminating the agreement and demanding return of the merchandise after a missed payment in Nov 2025 3) they sold a set from Mansell's collection after 1 & 2 to one of Mansell's confederates 4) they knowingly removed stickers placed on the collection by the previous store owner to identify it as part of the collection

Even if the consignment was undone, they don't get to just keep the collection. The agreement can almost certainly be terminated, but the collection would then be returned to Mansell.

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#222

Post by dugidugout »

everforward wrote: post #179
shadefinale wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much. Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems…

[flagged]

> The store obviously has an obligation to hand over either money or the goods, but it's not clear that obligation is transient to anyone that ends up with the goods.

It is extremely clear. You are just detailing the buffer being used to pretend otherwise.

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#223

Post by thrance »

aprilthird2021 wrote: post #123
throwaway85825 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mormonism is the original cult that survived the first generation. It has all the hallmarks of a cult, singular charismatic leader, polygamy, child abuse, apocalyptic prophecy etc.

Child abuse is not an official sanctioned thing in Mormonism. And they have officially ended the practice of polygamy (yes there was some coercion on the part of the US govt) The other three were pretty much traits of every major traditional religion at its founding.

> Child abuse is not an official sanctioned thing in Mormonism.

The purpose of a system is what it does.

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#225

Post by fc417fc802 »

SteveGerencser wrote: post #139
solomonb wrote: post #71

Can anyone explain WHY a 400M company would do this? This is just bonkers. They are destroying their reputation for $200k of legos???

Why would a billion-dollar company pay their employees so little that they need assistance to live? Or need to urinate in a bottle to keep their delivery times up? Greed and a belief that the rules don't apply to them.

The apt comparison would be wage theft. It's one thing to advertise a job at a particular hourly rate, entirely another to breach the contract and lose public trust for a paltry gain. If you're going to commit what people will interpret as theft at least make sure it's worth your while.

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#227

Post by eff-nix »

fragmede wrote: post #191
eff-nix wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Depends. Do the atheists of your region have literal physical temples where they hold weekly ceremonies and tithings to a central coordinating organization that goes back almost 200 years?

[flagged]

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#228

Post by shadefinale »

bishfish wrote: post #214
rubyn00bie wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't even serve papers because they're being relentlessly harassed by Police who have immediately banned them from serving them. In part 2, cops even verify the court case and he has a process server-- but they just refuse to. One of many different cops eventually took the papers to serve them, and ended up coming back saying "he didn't want them." Additionally, the original business in Kaizer shutdown as soon…

Would it count as being served if bodycam shows that police handed him the papers and he gave them back or tossed them on the floor?

According to Ben, the bodycam footage of the officer's attempt to serve the papers is fully redacted, no audio/video at all.

Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection

#230

Post by 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.

Post reply on HN