javajaws said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

flakrat said:

---

Popcorn'd for later viewing. This could become a Netflix series in the mold of Breaking Bad or the followup series with the lawyer :-)

---

Bricking Bad?

---

That pun is so good it hurts!

---

You must have stepped on it.

javajaws said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

It was just part of the collection. The sets he was raffling off he had to own in order to do the raffle

---

I seem to recall him talking about $10k chunks of legos being sold to him and his friends so I'm not sure if that was the same deal as for the raffle. Why would he have needed his friends to buy legos for the raffle if they were only raffling off a single set? Unfortunately I don't have time to re-watch the video to clarify...so if you know...thx.

---

The raffle was for an item in the store inventory that was part of the collection.

The 10k selling thing came in later as a way to split up the collection into 10k chunks and keep it in small claims court.

Not sure of the legality of both actions... Im not a lawyer but I feel BAM/Bricks n figs could have challenged the validity of it, had they taken it to the judge... but going to court probably opens up a lot of other issues.

Im kind of confused by the whole situation...(just started the first video).

Who is this Youtube kid? Is he just a rando that decided to take matters into his own hands? How did he get the contract, and what's his relation to the Lego set owner?

the lego set owners called him to try and get his reach to help them get some sort of resolution.

ok. Thanks.

Slwdsm said:

---

javajaws said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

It was just part of the collection. The sets he was raffling off he had to own in order to do the raffle

---

I seem to recall him talking about $10k chunks of legos being sold to him and his friends so I'm not sure if that was the same deal as for the raffle. Why would he have needed his friends to buy legos for the raffle if they were only raffling off a single set? Unfortunately I don't have time to re-watch the video to clarify...so if you know...thx.

---

The raffle was for an item in the store inventory that was part of the collection.

The 10k selling thing came in later as a way to split up the collection into 10k chunks and keep it in small claims court.

Not sure of the legality of both actions... Im not a lawyer but I feel BAM/Bricks n figs could have challenged the validity of it, had they taken it to the judge... but going to court probably opens up a lot of other issues.

---

Exactly. But my point is - if those sale contracts were real then the old guy no longer really owns the legos (but may still be owed money from Ben and his friends as I seem to recall some borrowing of money going on as well).

These guys really stepped into the deep end on this one.

Maybe this is answered later, but that seems like an odd move.

Why not just call an attorney, and handle it with the courts from the very beginning? I feel like that would have been my first call, after he found out the franchise owner was booted.

they don't have the money to go against a multi-millions dollar corporation. they corporate leaders even mocked and threatened them with just that. they would ruin them financially in court if they tried to go that route.

they don't have the money or the time. It would be a long expensive process due to the fact they would probably have to sue the former owners (who no longer live in the country) who would in turn have to sue B&M. It would be years before they see a dime.

Going this route, whether you agree with the antics or not, is a lot quicker.

AgDev01 said:

---

they don't have the money or the time. It would be a long expensive process due to the fact they would probably have to sue the former owners (who no longer live in the country) who would in turn have to sue B&M. It would be years before they see a dime.

Going this route, whether you agree with the antics or not, is a lot quicker.

---

To piggy back, I believe he said he talked to attorneys and was told 60-70k to get going due to the complexity of the case.

Slwdsm said:

---

javajaws said:

---

AgBQ-00 said:

---

It was just part of the collection. The sets he was raffling off he had to own in order to do the raffle

---

I seem to recall him talking about $10k chunks of legos being sold to him and his friends so I'm not sure if that was the same deal as for the raffle. Why would he have needed his friends to buy legos for the raffle if they were only raffling off a single set? Unfortunately I don't have time to re-watch the video to clarify...so if you know...thx.

---

The raffle was for an item in the store inventory that was part of the collection.

The 10k selling thing came in later as a way to split up the collection into 10k chunks and keep it in small claims court.

Not sure of the legality of both actions... Im not a lawyer but I feel BAM/Bricks n figs could have challenged the validity of it, had they taken it to the judge... but going to court probably opens up a lot of other issues.

---

Apparently all the small claims cases were actually dismissed and he didn't receive default judgements.