Live data from Hacker News

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

mybricklog.com

671–680 of 704 posts

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

#671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more like a combination of factors that make child abuse more prevalent: lack of access to the outside world (" we are in the world but not of the world "), a strict patriarchal hierarchy in the home that puts children at the bottom, endorsement by the church of physical punishments, etc.

I mean that's not data though. Data shows us poverty is highly correlated with child abuse. More so than those factors (which are but less so)

Indeed, but poverty being the most important factor in the general population doesn't mean than some groups exhibit different behaviors.

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

#672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When this is so clearly theft, how can the police just claim “it’s a civil matter”? They seem to like that excuse, I know… but gahhh!

The police are right. This is a dispute about who is the rightful owner of the Lego. That is a civil matter to be decided by the courts. Doesn't matter how clear the evidence, such disputes are for the courtroom.

Absolutely - and there are bad actors here that we should be mad at since they are abusing the law enforcement system but the default goal in situations should always be to de-escalate to prevent violence. I think the cops could have done a better job at explaining next steps and routes to approach a civil resolution but anyone objecting to the police officer removing Ben from the store property after a trespassing complaint doesn't understand how abusive it can be on the receiving end of stalking or harassment.

Separating parties in a civil dispute is always a good idea.

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

#673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a large part of the value of secondhand stuff is in the box and packaging, assuming those nice boxes in the image were from his collection - those are a little more fragile than the Lego pieces themselves. Edit: wait, the whole collection was sealed and new in box. Yea, just water damage to those boxes would cut the value by at least 10%. Collectors are picky as shit.

They were sealed in box? Yeah you'd be right that damage would be easy and could significantly reduce the value. I didn't realize people bought Lego to leave in the box. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised because it's a common thing for collectors to do in other hobbies.

Even without the box I think you're underestimating how damaging water is. If you're experience a flood it's never distilled H20, sometimes it's sewage and that's just awful, but even if it's storm water or a broken water main the water isn't the difficult portion (though that alone can lead to all sorts of mold issues) it's the sediment. If that sediment is from brown water there are obvious biological hazards which may lead to destruction being the only economical resolution, but even if it's just mud and sand that forces a huge expenditure to actually clean the products and if there's a signficantly misaligned pH it may damage products that you otherwise think of as water resistant.

Given this was a set of full star wars legos with decades of age a lot of those bricks are already going to have degraded somewhat and technix style components are likely to be significantly damaged from internal sediment accumulation. If you drop your water proofed water in a stagnant pond for three weeks it's likely that the internal seal will hold up and protect the delicate components but you'll probably need someone to pull the glue or other sealant out and replace it as well as going over the exterior surface with cleaning solutions to get it back to the quality it was in before being submerged - and flooding is rarely an instantaneous affair.

I wouldn't underestimate just how damaging to goods storage can be - and if you're doing it at scale you're going to be paying that cost constantly just as a percentage of value stored.

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

#674
post #47

It's wild to me how willing people are to torch their company's reputation. If you've seen some of the videos and comments around this it really seems like the corporate owners, and possibly the new franchisee, are arguably, for lack of a better descriptio0n, egotistical bullies, the "yeah? sue me then" types. They've probably gone their entire life just being a-holes and not being held accountable. And now they're d…

>The facts and the law here are quite simple. Man consigns LEGO collection to the store. He has a contract. The new store owner still has that liability. That would only be true if a new owner purchased the business. In bankruptcy consigned goods become property of the consignee's bankruptcy estate and cannot be returned to the original owners. The original owners have a cause of action against the estate, but they a…

Your cited law applies to non consumer goods, and companies under bankruptcy protection. Neither applies here.

If you read the link you posted it explains all this.

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

#675
post #114

Unless 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.

The entity that was sued is the franchise that is now closed, and not corporate.

Corporate was involved with transferring the consigned goods to a new franchisee, and was aware that the goods were consigned. They may have significant liability.

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

#676

from BAM faq post the other day[0]. FAQ Q: If you want a resolution, why not just pay the money demanded online? A: We are completely willing to sit down and figure out a fair, reality-based way to ensure this grandfather is made whole. However, there is a fundamental difference between a good-faith resolution and giving in to a coordinated, viral extortion campaign. We will not reward individuals who use fake delive…

“If only you hadn’t embarrassed us publicly after refusing to deal with this situation fairly, we would have dealt with this situation fairly”

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

#677

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…

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.

Corporate is lying all over the place. If you're following the story, you can see all the contradictions, let alone the video that came out today that literally needs a federal FBI investigation and internal affairs looking into the police department and the Church of Mormon corruption, which is shockingly overt in the video just released. Like I'm talking anti-American level of full city or state takeover corruption.

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

#678

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…

>It seems like theft, but it's a very common civil contract dispute.

Theft by conversion is an actual crime, not just a civil dispute.

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

#679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As soon as there is a shred of dispute every theft becomes a contract dispute

Well, you might say that. > The police, for their part, kept calling it a "civil matter" and declining to investigate. Every single time. On the other hand... > In a subsequent conversation after the store closure and lawsuit loss, when Ben indicated the logical next step was to pursue Johnson personally, Josh's response, according to documented accounts, included the threat: " If you try to pursue me legally, YOU st…

[deleted]

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

#680
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Corporate is lying a lot, and is pretty clearly guilty of theft at the very least. The bigger problems I see here are: 1. You can't really sure large corporations like Bricks & Minifigs. They've got deeper pockets and can drag it out until you go bankrupt. There's no good legal recourse for this, meaning larger corporations can basically do whatever they want and ignore the law, as long as they only hurt people small…

> at least it would be some measure of justice.

It’s sad that it will hurt the other franchisees the most.

Post reply on HN