[flagged]
You have to be informed that you're not allowed to be on the premises ("trespassed") and be allowed to leave before you can be charged with trespassing.
Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
111–120 of 704 posts
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#112I'm really confused by this blog. There seems to be a large portion of the story missing. I can't figure out the correlation between the owner losing their franchise and the rest of the story. Why did they want to steal the sets? If they're really a $400M company (whatever that means), why would they do this over (at most) $200k? I couldn't figure out what is being claimed here. I'm not saying it's not true, I just c…
[flagged]
You'd think that if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details. If they moved someone else's property out of the store, then surely they would be able to share evidence supporting this.
All we have to go by is the blogger's account, so that's the story. Just saying "there must be more to it" without evidence that there is more to it, is just vague speculation.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#113I've personally never heard of consignment deals where the consignment store becomes the owners of the goods. Not once.
Back in college I used to make money flipping stuff on Ebay, and did that extensively. I did consignment for others, as well as sending stuff to others to sell.
This sounds illegal, and like a case of the store / new franchise owners trying to bully the consignors into submission.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#114Unless the entire corporation files for bankruptcy, they can't just shut down a store to avoid paying a debt, much less a court judgment.
There's clearly something else going on here that the blog post is either intentionally leaving out or grossly misunderstanding.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#115Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?
They lost default judgements because they did not appear. Either they thought it was fake or they thought they'd lose, but they were served and did not appear.
A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
They already have a judgement against the business for the full amount. But the business chose to close rather than pay
I dont understand how that works: The entire $400M business decided to close over $200K judgment? Or just the single store? If just the store, why did they sue the store and not the underlying business?
Just the single store closed .
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that hard to understand. A man gave a store merchandise on consignment, signed a contract with the store manager. The manager lost control of the store to corporate. The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. Corporate says, "this is mine now" and refuses to honor the contract. "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with u…
Corporate is also claiming that they don't allow stores to take on consignment deals, contrary to their franchise agreement explicitly allowing franchise owners to take on consignment deals.
I have absolutely no doubts a court would consider it impossible to transfer goods under consignment to a different entity free of the burden of the consignment contract. So the corporation trying to reach into the franchise to grab these goods without honoring the contract is absolute BS and they should be dragged through the mud over it.
The unfortunate loophole here is that, potentially, by shutting down that franchise in a bankruptcy the corporation may end up being preferred for being made whole on debts relative to the consigner. Bankruptcy is complicated so while I am pretty sure any remaining goods from the consignment would be returned to the original owner the proceeds from sales that were successfully made might end up in the pocket of the corporation.
Personally, I absolutely loathe consignment. It is an incredibly complex agreement with a lot of weird edge cases about deprecation of goods and the duty to seek a good price that get complex quick. If you have goods like this and can find a store that will buy your goods in bulk you should be very careful in considering how much you care about the price difference between that bulk price and the percentage they list for consignment. A single transaction is usually much cleaner and easier for both sides and in this case (trying to pay for medical costs) having the money immediately can be quite attractive.
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?
Also, what about the false police reports leading to police brutality?
Re: Bricks and Minifigs Stole a Man's $200k Lego Collection
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't use it that way, but it is correct. "The property owner or police barred you from the property." I had never heard it until recently, and now this is the third time I've heard it used that way.
hear cops often say it like that on body cam footage
used a lot in legal settings, yes - "bob was trespassed at that time"