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

Post by prophesi » Thu, May 28, 2026, 8:36 PM UTC

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #18

gkoberger wrote: post #11

I'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…

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…

Post by charcircuit » Thu, May 28, 2026, 8:37 PM UTC

xmprt wrote: post #8

One of the saddest things about modern capitalism is that people stealing from businesses is criminalized and heavily punished but businesses stealing from people (eg. wage theft, illegal contracts, medicare/PPP fraud, and outright stealing like this case) is treated as a civil violation and almost impossible to prosecute. The only cases of white collar crime I've seen get prosecuted is securities fraud and that's ri…

Post by busterarm » Thu, May 28, 2026, 8:39 PM UTC

throwaway85825 wrote: post #16

The part 2 video where the police harass and falsely arrest ben is even more shocking.

Post by consumer451 » Thu, May 28, 2026, 8:41 PM UTC

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #18

gkoberger wrote: post #11

I'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…

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…

Post by yesod » Thu, May 28, 2026, 8:44 PM UTC

dbeardsl wrote: post #24

yesod wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I can see: Franchisee entered into a consignment agreement to sell the lego. They were not allowed to do that, so corporate took over the franchise. BUT rather than unwind the agreement and return the lego, they just kept it. Argued for it to be dealt with legally. It was, they lost, so they closed down the store rather than return the lego.

> They were not allowed to do that Incorrect as the article points out with an image of the contract: > However, it was brought to my attention by site user @luddevig that Chrystal Law, the Bricks & Minifigs Salem-Keizer store's original owner, was able to pull the franchise agreement between her and and the B&M Corperation, that clearly states that consignment is allowed.