Subject:
|
Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 24 May 2004 19:26:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> Might this seem like a form of insider trading?
Not really, because I support insider trading. All trading is insider trading,
actually.
> 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?
Nope. Assuming there's no breach of contract.
> Out of curiosity, if the seller has these sets in hand (through legal means)
> then what, if anything, can LEGO do about it?
Nothing. You, however, can do something about it, if you wish.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items
|
| (...) That's an interesting assertion, though I'd have to differ. On what do you base it? (...) Hadn't thought about it, honestly. What could I do, if I wished? I can head to Hawaii and give him the frowning of a lifetime. Who's with me!?! Dave! (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Weekly Update of New AuctionBrick Items
|
| (...) 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 (...) (20 years ago, 24-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
