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

601–610 of 704 posts

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

#601

Post by throwaway85825 »

sgerenser wrote: post #527
taneq wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s like when I got my shower sealed and then it started leaking within the warranty period. The company claimed that they were the new owners and had purchased the business but not the warranty obligations (!) and I’d have to find the original owner and try to make him honour the warranty. Which was complete BS, obviously, but it wasn’t worth taking to court. :/

There actually are legal ways to do that… instead of buying the company, you start a new company, and just buy assets of the old company (e.g. phone numbers, web sites, trademarks, customer lists). Seems shady but apparently it’s pretty common.

Doesn't always work. I think J&J tried that with talc powder liability.

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

#602

Post by throwaway85825 »

mcv wrote: post #473
alasdair_ wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can seize assets that belong to the entity. They can’t seize assets that belong to other people just because it happens to be on their premises, in the same way that they can’t seize and sell the cars that happen to be in a bankrupt store’s parking lot.

I saw an analysis from a lawyer who said that there are situations where a creditor can claim consignment items, but that it didn't apply here.

Because they didn't file for bankruptcy.

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

#603

Post by Voultapher »

conartist6 wrote: post #190
rdtsc wrote: post #140

> Bricks & Minifigs CEO Ammon McNeff is a graduate of Brigham Young University. Joshua Johnson and Brandon Best are, by public record and documented account, members of the LDS community. When Reckless Ben's team, following the pattern of obstruction by local law enforcement, looked into the individual officers involved in these incidents, they found that multiple officers were also BYU alumni. I thought “it has to b…

Honestly that pattern of actions by law enforcement was the most disturbing thing. There was a moment where they knew this person was present at a private property to serve a warrant in a legitimate lawsuit. Clearly the right and moral action for the police at that moment was to help serve the papers AND then escort the litigant from the property. They chose to behave more like mobsters than defenders of the public t…

Sadly this is pretty on brand for police everywhere, but it's particularly egregious in "the land of the free".

If you want a sobering perspective on government power and its connection to wealth look into the history of labor movement.

Or this senate report about the CIA's detention and interogation program [0]. The section "Findings and Conclusions" is some of the most damning stuff I've ever read. Essentially they lied about the scope and brutality of the torturing, lied about its success - there was none or even negative effectiveness and every case they used as an example was a success because of information collected through other means - and actively sabotaged all attempts at oversight.

[0] https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/...

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

#604

Post by gosub100 »

thrance wrote: post #595
gosub100 wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And your source for this data? Or is this speculation?

Do you just ask questions to waste time or do you actually care about the answer? React to my other comment first.

So you just falsify data to waste people's time? I think you are just guessing. Or protecting your own distate for people who have a different lifestyle than you.

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

#605

Post by functionmouse »

BloondAndDoom wrote: post #569

How is there “justice” if everyone knows the party with less money cannot get into a legal battle? How is then America free and democratic? I’m not American and I’m very confused by this and also the concept of bail money.

turns out rich people own us

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

#606

Post by fancyfredbot »

superxpro12 wrote: post #593
fancyfredbot wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is a misrepresentation.... They acquired the contract that held those sets, not the sets directly. The "ownership" of the sets was with the original owner. The set owner entered into an agreement with the shop to pay them for shelf space to advertise the sets for sale. They were essentially "on-loan" or "borrowed". At no point in time was the ownership was ever transferred to the shop. Possession != ownership

Yes it's a misrepresentation and that's the whole point.

If B&M misrepresent things to the auditor it's unlikely they'll detect this. The auditor for B&M would not have access to the original contract between the previous owner of the store and the owner of the sets.

Audits just aren't that detailed. They might pick a few sample transactions or sample products to check in depth but every set in every store? Definitely not.

The comment I replied to insinuated an audit would lead straight to jail and I find that extremely unlikely. The likely outcome is a signed off audit, like at WireCard, ENRON, and WorldCom.

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

#607

Post by paulddraper »

maweaver wrote: post #579
getnormality wrote: post #556

I read the counterclaims from Bricks and Minifigs here: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi... This post and TFA have a common issue: no one seems to have a clear, compellingly evidenced account of basic questions about the collection and its history under consignment: 1. What exactly was in the collection? 2. What happened to the collection after it was consigned: which sets were sold, which…

One thing really stands out, which is that Bricks and Minifigs is pointing the finger at the franchisee for an "unauthorized" consignment deal. While the blog post has a screenshot of the contract specifically allowing consignments. Which undercuts a large part of the corporate argument.

Yeah, that's a glaring issue.

They say it was prohibited in the 2023 operating manual [1]. That's the same year as the franchise contract.

It'd be strange for B&M to lie about such an objectively falsifiable statement.

My best guess is that the franchise and operating manual were simply not in agreement.

(B&M wants to reject the consignment because they want the franchise operator to take liability for any missing or unreimbursed sales.)

[1] https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

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

#608

Post by munk-a »

liamwire wrote: post #480
munk-a wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have read that article and a few other sources since the first few ways I heard about this story were heavily biased. I have not yet seen B&M confirm that the contract that was leaked is genuine - it is incredibly unlikely that they would, of course, but it still remains one the facts in this case that I tenatively believe but have some reservations around. I thought it was interesting to, from the assumption that…

Your alternative is that the contract was forged. Something easily falsifiable in court and absolutely devastating to any case brought, not to mention any follow-on charges that may result. Is that what you're putting forward?

I thought I was very clear above - my alternative is that even under the best light there were still clearly bad actions carried out by bricks and minifigs. When there is a grey zone I find it helpful to work out what the most charitable interpretation if it is still negative. Even when given the biggest benefit of the doubt Bricks and Minifigs is clearly acting in bad faith here.

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

#609

Post by munk-a »

alasdair_ wrote: post #373
throwaway85825 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In bankrupty a court appointed liquidator can seize assets and sell them to repay creditors. Of course none of this happened here.

They can seize assets that belong to the entity. They can’t seize assets that belong to other people just because it happens to be on their premises, in the same way that they can’t seize and sell the cars that happen to be in a bankrupt store’s parking lot.

There are a lot of reasons why you should never sell things through consignment - but one of those reasons is that the goods cease to be yours in several significant ways. If a company is able to sell a good they could sell that good to fulfill debts - if it is a route to liquidate goods to cover debts then it's in the scope of the liquidator (though I think in most cases a sane liquidator would return the goods whole to avoid creating more debt than already exists and destroying non-fungible goods). If we assume the consignment sale was advantageous for the seller it's unlikely there's a way for the liquidator to quickly sell the goods in bulk for a better margin than the consignment contract offered so any sale they executed would likely add more debt than it cured.

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

#610

Post by robotnikman »

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.

For a guy like him, 200k is probably no big deal. Instead of doing the right and easy to do thing, he is instead deciding to drag out this whole ordeal. Really says a lot about the guys character.
Post reply on HN