alt Hacker NewsThe 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.
Replies
ChrisRR • today at 9:46 AM
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
pluc • today at 12:10 PM
"This agreement is null and void except for this part that works in my favour"
retired • yesterday at 10:57 PM
Would a simple audit not completely destroy this case?
"How did you acquire these sets?"
"Uhm... don't know they just appeared out of nowhere"
Straight to jail.
From what I understand ownership of the Lego sets never left the Mansells. The consignment agreement states as much.
Even if we take what corporate says at face value (there was no agreement, or the agreement is null, or it's an agreement that the previous owners agreed to) that still just means that the store possesses property that they do not legally own. Whether or not they legally came to possess the sets seems irrelevant here.
I'm not a lawyer but I don't see how the Mansells ever stopped owning the lego sets.