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

421–430 of 704 posts

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

#421

Post by fastball »

giltron wrote: post #224
_rifo wrote: post #208

[flagged]

[flagged]

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this more criminal?

BAM / new franchisee claims that any consignment deal is null and void after their takeover. If they knowingly possess items that therefore do not belong to them legally (because they were never owned by the previous franchisee), is that not theft (and therefore criminal behavior)?

Like imagine the previous franchisee left their phone in the store. Then the new owners say "nah, it doesn't belong to me". But actually it does. That is theft.

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

#423

Post by usehand »

paulddraper wrote: post #386
ryandrake wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 vagu…

> if there was a side of the story where the details exonerated the company, you'd think they would share those details Here is that side, published last week: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/21/salem-ore... And some further elaboration today: https://bricksandminifigs.com/blog/blog/2026/05/28/bricks-mi...

Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them

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

#424

Post by jmcgough »

mattmaroon wrote: post #337

I just don’t understand why a company with $95m in sales would steal $200k. That’s a fraction of a percent of sales for the year. There’s now a boycott against them that will easily cost them more than that. If the case is as this blog says, it cannot be hard to find a lawyer to do this one pro bono. Breach of contract is one of the few things in America where you can sue for your legal fees. If you take over a busin…

I have a family member who works in estate planning. From all the stories he's told me, a lot of wealthy people compulsively screw over people / refuse to follow the contract they agreed to / etc, simply because they can and know that it is too expensive for most people to file a lawsuit.

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

#425

Post by madaxe_again »

hparadiz wrote: post #292
jonlucc wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

Oregon case law comes off looking terrible here. Who would want to do business in this environment?

Mormons who have Mormon friends in the judiciary.

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

#426

Post by fsloth »

toofy wrote: post #389
keithnz wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you look at the latest stuff from the previous owner where they recorded multiple conversations / pulled security footage... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedmOopRTm0 1, they were allowed to do consignment deals, 2, when corporate took control, they said they'd take on the consignment liability, 3, BAM outright threatens them with making the legal process too expensive for them. All of which contradicts the curr…

yeah, it’s plain as day they say blatantly they’ll take on the consignment. the reckless ben youtube videos are pretty clearly laid out with contracts, video evidence, etc.. the crazy part to me is how blatant the executives of bricks and minifigs are in saying go ahead and try to sue us, we’ll drag this out until you’re broke from lawyers fees. we’re a lawyer rich corp and you’re not. they don’t even try to hide it.…

"the crazy part to me is how blatant the executives of bricks and minifigs are in saying go ahead and try to sue us, we’ll drag this out "

To my experience this is a common strategy in disputes when the corporate party has people who operate as uncivilized brutes. I think it's part of the McKinseyfication of companies - profits at all cost - and here's the playbook.

My personal experience is from private parking control. Rather than be professional about my reclamation, their first response was "only criminals dispute these and we win all the court cases".

So I think trying to be imposing and villanous to scare the other non-corporate party to back off is a common global corporate playbook in situations in matters where companies enter contractual complex space with individuals.

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

#427

Post by hnlmorg »

munk-a wrote: post #370
gowld wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Holding inventory" is only problem if the store is full.

It isn't - deprecation of held goods is always a risk and if you're working on consignment then that comes with weird financial liabilities. If there's a flood and you lose your inventory it sucks - if there's a flood and you lose an inventory of consigned values then suddenly you're potentially exposed to paying market value for a number of items in addition to all the site damage you'll need to address. Capacity is…

None of this is a risk with Lego.

Depreciation: not going to happen on Star Wars sets that are not longer in production.

Water damage: Lego is water proof.

Breakage: being easy to take apart and put back together is Lego’s core principle.

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

#428

Post by rolandog »

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…

(sprinkle a bunch of IIRC's) You're glossing over the fact that they have continued to sell the items in spite of a cease and desist from the brick owners which makes them totally culpable of selling other people's property, and that they're also being sued for unfair termination because the managers were calling in good faith to let them know they were going to take a job abroad.

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

#429

Post by toofy »

i ignored this for the last week. but after enough people who’s opinions i trust wouldn’t shut up about it, i caved and watched today. this is fucking bonkers. part 2 (and i don’t say this often) is f’ing crazy.

i was like, “a story about legos? cmon.” and then part 1 was a 7/10 and hooked me enough to subscribe to his patreon to see the next part early and wtf, the stuff going on in utah is crazy. i cannot recommend this enough. i’m confident this is going to blow much wider, and once it breaks these utah cops containment, more than a few people will be going to prison.

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

#430

Post by Dylan16807 »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #363
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree the deal from when minim wage was established is broken. A wage you can't raise a family on is not a living wage, as it results in a dead/old age society, not a living society. As such, this part of the new deal should be reverted as well "We are relaxing some of the safeguards of the anti-trust laws. The public must be protected against the abuses that led to their enactment, and to this end, we are putting…

What's a family? Should it be 2-3 kids max, and then you're on your own? A solo adult who doesn't want kids is going to have far lower expenses and "living wage" than a single mother with 6 kids.

> What's a family? Should it be 2-3 kids max, and then you're on your own?

As far as the specific concept of a living wage, yes.

> A solo adult who doesn't want kids is going to have far lower expenses and "living wage" than a single mother with 6 kids.

The solo adult can enjoy the extra money. And if they start a family later they'll have extra savings to build on. The baseline should be bringing everyone up to the level that they could afford a family, whether they have one or not. We have more than enough productivity and wealth to make this happen.

For someone with 6 kids, they need help from other sources. That goes beyond living wage territory.

Post reply on HN