Subject:
|
Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 May 2004 19:18:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1131 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jeremy Rear wrote:
>
> > It could be very possible that this person works for Maersk in Hawaii, or knows
> > someone who works for Maersk, or contacted Maersk directly (having an "in" with
> > the company) to obtain the ships.
> >
> > Not to defend this person, but these are possibilities.
>
> Indeed they are. Which is why I asked that LEGO look into it. (asked, mind you)
> And later posted that I have reason to believe they are looking into it.
Might this seem like a form of insider trading?
If LEGO has facilitated this process in defiance of its stated ordering limits,
then cleary they're at fault. But what if the seller has found a
non-publicly-disclosed means of acquiring numerous copies of this set and has
simply made use of that means? Supposing that this is the case, and presuming
that no illegal action has been taken, is it wrong for the seller to have done
so?
Out of curiosity, if the seller has these sets in hand (through legal means)
then what, if anything, can LEGO do about it?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
10 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
