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

471–480 of 704 posts

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

#471

Post by mcv »

nine_k wrote: post #361
michaelt wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Selling on consignment can be an absolutely great deal for shops, under the right conditions. If I'm a lego trader and I buy your set for $900 hoping to sell it later for $1000, in the meantime that's $900 I can't invest in anything else. And maybe I guessed the set's value wrong and I end up unloading it for $800, taking a loss. On the other hand, if I agree to sell that same set on consignment? Zero capital outlay,…

> just some shelf space Unless the store owns its building and has too little inventory to cover the shelves, the cost of not filling the shelves with the right goods is quite serious. In a low-margin business like retail, "just some shelf space" reads almost like "just some gold bars".

If you have no shelf space, of course you can refuse the consignment. And this was a really big one, but the shop was initially very happy with it. Advertised widely with it. Brought in more shelves to display it all. From what I understand, it was a very large part of what was for sale in that shop.

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

#472

Post by itsalwayscults »

rib3ye wrote: post #419
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…

The Reckless Ben video is the best thing I've seen on youtube in the last several years.

We really need an eccentric billionaire going around trolling all sorts of petty legal trolling. Ben is actively making the world a better place with this, and every person with a networth worth a damn is barely a toenail the man he is.

I didn't know Ben dealt with cults until he revealed he started the "Scientology Sucks" religion, but as soon as the cops started baiting him into agreeing they had cause for arrest, I instantly guessed he had completely accidentally walked right into another cult corruption video. If I had a penny for the amounts of times I saw this exact type of cult discovery happen, I'd have 4, which is a pattern -> ALL cults are corrupt.

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

#473

Post by mcv »

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.

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.

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

#474

Post by eloisant »

jonlucc wrote: post #213
shadefinale wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or they thought that the losses were acceptable to avoid having to make sworn statements about the series of events that are still at issue in the previous owner's case and some events that may very well still be charged by Oregon prosecutors.

They didn't even lose any money, because by closing the store the damages were never paid.

It's really depressing to see to be honest.

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

#475

Post by itsalwayscults »

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?

Their B2B goods exchange tax is 0.

That would be why.

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

#476

Post by ChrisRR »

999900000999 wrote: post #466

Way to do millions of dollars in PR damage over 200k. As this story spreads people will just assume the whole chain is bad. The bigger story is an elderly man needing to sell his toys to pay for cancer treatment. We could give all people free cancer treatment, but defense contractors need money.

I totally don't get it. If I were the head of corporate I would've just given them the sets back to avoid all of the backlash.

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

#477

Post by ChrisRR »

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.

It's not even paying 200k. It's returning the sets that haven't been sold. They hadn't paid for the sets, they just hold them in stock until they're sold

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

#478

Post by mcv »

Electricniko wrote: post #334
crazygringo wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They wouldn't make any sense, if the whole thing started because corporate took over control and ownership the location.

It sounds like corporate took away ownership and gave it to a new franchisee.

The original franchisee claims to have lost their life savings in that move. I have no idea how exactly that happened. Their story really sounds like something from Russia back when western investors had their company simply taken from them by someone well-connected.

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

#479

Post by ChrisRR »

crazygringo wrote: post #230

> 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…

I don't think they won in court, B&M just didn't respond so it went to a default judgement

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

#480

Post by liamwire »

munk-a wrote: post #368
philistine wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly didn't read the article. The original franchisee's contract allows consignement.

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?
Post reply on HN