| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago |
| Forgive me if I'm trying to figure out what's going on here. I just read the linked blog and some of the links within, but I don't have time to watch all these long YouTube videos > The goods were still there, still on display and being sold. The store says the full inventory was not discoverable at the store. They said the person gave a written statement in the past saying the collection was "moved off site for security reasons" so I don't think this is really as cut and dry as the YouTuber and blogger people are trying to make it look. > Corporate says, "this is mine now" Their statement says they located what inventory they could and offered it back. I think there's a lot more to this story. I wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story. |
|
| ▲ | axus an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. Seems there's some reason the liability from the lawsuit doesn't transfer to the corporation. |
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent [-] | | > The store (as managed by the second group) lost the suit, if they were negligent they still owe the consigner. What's missing is the relationship between the second group and the corporate parent. This does seem like a very key point that keeps getting ignored for the sake of a simpler story. Everyone keeps talking about this lawsuit loss, but what lawsuit? Against whom? The article doesn't even explain, but it's starting to look like the lawsuit was against the former owners, contrary to the ragebait "Bricks and Minifigs stole..." title | | |
|
|
| ▲ | usehand an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases? |
| |
| ▲ | shadefinale an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | usehand an hour ago | parent [-] | | A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win? | | |
| ▲ | altairprime an hour ago | parent [-] | | [retracted] | | |
| ▲ | usehand 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima. | | |
| ▲ | altairprime 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Ooh, I missed that! I thought I’d watched it a couple days ago but I might have dozed off due to unrelated life tired; will revisit, thanks. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Aurornis an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Who is "they"? Bricks and Minifigs? Or the previous owners? Do you mind citing your sources at least? The linked article refers to a "lawsuit loss" but doesn't explain who it was against or what it was for. | | |
| ▲ | usehand 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As I said in my other reply to you, you go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. Maybe you should refrain from doing so if you don't know anything about it. I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. If you are too stupid to find basic info on a notorious case, again, maybe refrain from talking about shit you know nothing about. | | |
| ▲ | Aurornis 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > You go around this post defending B&M with no knowledge of the basic facts of the case. I'm not defending anyone. I'm saying the claims don't line up > I will not do your work for you. Everything I said is true and easily searchable, feel free to look it up. Everything I quoted was from me looking it up! | | |
| ▲ | usehand 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties. Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims. |
|
|
|
|
