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

631–640 of 704 posts

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

#631

Post by kmeisthax »

K0balt wrote: post #496
fancyfredbot wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. It makes no rational sense for the corporation to act this way. I can see how they end up losing a court case but can't explain why they don't pay up. It sounds like the first franchise collapsed owing money. I expect the company had created strong incentives for employees to claw that back. Someone has followed those incentives against the interest of the corporation. This happens all the time alth…

It’s a farcical notion that people are uniformly rational actors, as well as the notion that rational is adjacent to just. It’s an unfortunate fact that many people in positions of wealth and power default to “F-you my lawyers will drown you and I will win” in every single case, regardless of merit. Many times, that is the singular strategy that has put them in that position of wealth and power. Many times, they appl…

> Its continuously surprising to plebs because it goes against the fantasy of the fundamental justice of society that they have been inculcated with, a convenient lie that keeps powerless people in their lane and justifies the use of police powers to protect the criminal activity of the owner class.

Even without the propaganda factor, its also surprising to plebs because there are plenty of plebs who try similar schemes and get their ass handed to them in the courts. Thievery is not an exclusive invention of the well-to-do. But being rich enough means you can actually afford a competent legal defense, which will delay the case out until the opposing party capitulates, because the cost of fighting[0] is far higher for you than them. This is the same reason why convicted felon Donald Trump is also on his second Presidential term. It turns out, you can outrun the long arm of the law, and most people are just not fast enough to do it.

It also doesn't help that the law is really out of shape. The US justice system is specifically optimized to get quick judgments against legally inexperienced defendants, mainly because they can't fight back. It's the same reason why housecats hunt and kill mice and small birds, and not, say, capybara or eagles. But all the features that make it really easy to hunt weaker legal prey also make it harder to take on big cases. Things like lawyers being stupid expensive and there being no fee shifting mechanism means weak defendants fold, but also that the government won't bother fighting tough cases. Which, again, shifts the risk of illegal behavior to the poor and unconnected.

[0] Oh no, I've started to channel the Lines on Maps guy.

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

#632

Post by rincebrain »

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.

Americans think they're "free and democratic" in the same way that aristocrats think they're better than everyone - it's been inculcated in them since birth, by every aspect of the culture and their upbringing, and as an axiomatic belief, it's not something they challenge.

There's nuance, of course, with people who are worse off in America seeing some cracks in it, but that's how you get the idiom about "Americans vote like temporarily inconvenienced millionaires" - they are so convinced the game isn't rigged against them that they vote assuming they will win at the casino one day.

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

#633

Post by fusslo »

fusslo wrote: post #567
qingcharles wrote: post #407

The CEO's brother (the COO) appeared on a live stream tonight and showed the Temporary Restraining Order they obtained against everyone -- Ben, Chrystal, etc. which requires them to remove all their media on all platforms etc. The basis for the TRO was that they offered "sufficient evidence" that Ben, Chrystal etc were a "criminal conspiracy" subject to RICO. This shit is crazy. Here's a screen grab of the TRO: https…

I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.

reading through the court documents now:

1. BAM expresses that the original franchise owner (Chrystal) was heavily in debt to BAM ($175,000 ) owed to BAM

2. When Chystal told BAM of her intent to sell, BAM 'repossessed' her store and her inventory to help cover her debt (really, it was the her LLC's debt, but I'm using Chrysal as a shorthand). There is a clause in the franchise agreement that says everything IN the store will be repossessed. Afterwards BAM characterizes Chrystal's actions as 'abandoning' her store

3. BAM valued the repossessed inventory at $38,000 and subtracted that amount from her $175,000 debt.

4. BAM then sold the repossessed inventory to another franchisee who took over the store location (Baker Bricks, LLC).

5. BAM argues that this agreement and rules only provide consignment IFF BAM receives a request in writing and approves the consignment.

6. BAM says they never were informed of the agreement and disallows consignment.

7. BAM says the consignment was a PRIVATE agreement between Chrystal and Mansell.

8. BAM questions the veracity of the agreement as they claim the only version they have is unsigned.

9. BAM completes the sale to Baker Bricks, LLC and claims "Baker did not at any time acquire, take over or assume any obligations of Chrystal or Salem LLC"

Then things go off the rails as Mansell is trying to figure out what happened to his LEGO.

Isn't that bad for BAM?

IF:

1. it's a PRIVATE agreement between Mansell and Chrystal

2. The agreement state Mansell is the owner of the lego until sold

3. Mansell's legos were repossessed by BAM

THEN:

What legal right do they have to 'repossess' and then sell the Lego to Baker?

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

#634

Post by dfadsadsf »

gamblor956 wrote: post #277
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

If the consignment contract was not legal then BAM never owned the goods and would not have had the right to sell them. EDIT: as other commenters point out, BAM actually did lose the lawsuit over this and now the issue is the consigner is trying to collect the judgment. In that case it would normally be irrelevant that the store was a franchise location, because BAM would have become the successor to all liabilities…

>BAM would have become the successor to all liabilities upon taking over the store (in the U.S., at least).

Not necessarily and highly depended on how it was structured and state law. It's possible that BAM only took over entity and then all liabilities stays with the same entity (that was bankrupted later). Another option it was only asset sale without liabilities, etc.

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

#635

Post by ChrisRR »

juleiie wrote: post #564
ChrisRR wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misc bricks aren't worth anywhere near as much as full sets (unless you happen to have some of the rarer bricks people are after)

Okay but you get the point. This is not investment, this is playground. No one buys Lego thinking “oh they will make me rich if I just keep them unopened for next 20 years” cmon

A hell of a lot of people do and make a lot of money from it

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

#636

Post by zargon »

paulddraper wrote: post #607
maweaver wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There was a livestream last night where the Bricks and Minifigs COO said that the franchise agreement has a clause saying that the operations manual overrules the franchise agreement and they can update the operations manual at any time. BAM's court filing instead says that the franchise agreement allows consignment services, but "limited expressly to those approved by BAM".

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

#637

Post by qingcharles »

fusslo wrote: post #633
fusslo wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.

reading through the court documents now: 1. BAM expresses that the original franchise owner (Chrystal) was heavily in debt to BAM ($175,000 ) owed to BAM 2. When Chystal told BAM of her intent to sell, BAM 'repossessed' her store and her inventory to help cover her debt (really, it was the her LLC's debt, but I'm using Chrysal as a shorthand). There is a clause in the franchise agreement that says everything IN the s…

Chrystal, in one of her posts, made a case that they were in debt to BAM because of misconduct from BAM who were not honoring their side of the franchise agreement.

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

#638

Post by overfeed »

8note wrote: post #571
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #18

Earlier 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…

> "It wasn't our name on it, says right here that the previous store manager signed this, and she's no longer with us." this seems kinda obvious that if they dont have a contract to do consignment, they don't have a contract to the lego at all, and cannot sell the lego

> this seems kinda obvious that if they dont have a contract to do consignment, they don't have a contract to the lego at all, and cannot sell the lego

The ancient adage unfortunately applies here still: Possession is 9/10ths of the law

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

#639

Post by [deleted] »

eloisant wrote: post #457
free652 wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Please enlighten us what other "due diligence" these people should have done for your point. $20 filing with the state https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14ktgvoH4Mc

It's easy to say after the fact, how are people supposed to know that before doing business with a nationwide franchise?

[deleted]

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

#640

Post by fusslo »

fusslo wrote: post #633
fusslo wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never been more convinced of guilt than the COO's actions in this live stream.

reading through the court documents now: 1. BAM expresses that the original franchise owner (Chrystal) was heavily in debt to BAM ($175,000 ) owed to BAM 2. When Chystal told BAM of her intent to sell, BAM 'repossessed' her store and her inventory to help cover her debt (really, it was the her LLC's debt, but I'm using Chrysal as a shorthand). There is a clause in the franchise agreement that says everything IN the s…

The VERY first mention of Mansell's in person actions are "Bryan showed up later that day and began yelling at personnel..."

really? Bryan Mansell is SO unhinged and deranged that he started the interaction with yelling at personnel?

I think BAM's ultimate claim is that Chrystal either stole Bryan's inventory OR already sold it all before BAM's repossession.

Since BAM claim's the store's inventory at time of repossession was only $38,000 and when Mansell was able to audit Baker's inventory there was none of Mansell's lego in the store.

BUT THEN, in in late 2025 Baker "...located a few (approximately 20) Star Wars LEGO sets in a back office lockable cupboard, on which they noticed stickers not previously recognized"

BAM also claims the small-claims court victories in the video aren't real.

I will say Reckless Ben did a lot of stuff that does NOT look good in a legal document

Post reply on HN