MovieChat Forums > Brewster's Millions (1985) Discussion > Another stamp question

Another stamp question

posted 18 years ago by freff
7 replies | jump to latest

Ok, it's been established that mailing the stamp did not constitute Brewster destroying it, since the stamp is legal tender and was simply that way by the postoffice. My question is, how does Monty prove that he 'spent' the stamp?

What I mean is, its been established that he buys the stamp for 1.5 million. It's also known that the stamp counts as an asset for him. Monty gets around that by mailing it, but as I understand it isn't the canceled stamp his reciept? Basically, didn't he by mailing the postcard with the canceled stamp to the old guys, give them the only proof that he had used the stamp? If they wanted to, couldn't they just lose the postcard, and then claim they never got it, thereby forcing Monty to prove that he doesn't still own an asset worth over 1 million dollars?

---------------
"Life is full of censorship. I can't spit in your eye."

[–] romanoff-1 18 years ago

Perhaps he mailed it registered or return receipt requested, in which case the law firm would have had to sign for it, thereby proving they received it.

[–] stevenackerman69 17 years ago

Maybe when he mailed it, he didn't just put it in the mailbox, he went to a post office so he'd get a receipt from a teller. They just didn't show that.

[–] heiglfanatic 16 years ago

How about this?? Perhaps when he bought the stamp the store owner gave him a receipt. Come on Brewster knew the rules so he would have asked for a receipt even if the owner did not give him one

[–] willydoe71 16 years ago

That doesn't answer the original post though. Of course a receipt from the store owner would prove he BOUGHT the stamp, but the original poster is asking how Monty would prove he MAILED the stamp, since he mailed it to the law firm, who could have simply hidden the postcard and said they never received it, thereby nullifying the fact that Monty didn't buy the stamp as an asset.

I think this was just an oversight on the part of the writers. Though it's possible that he sent it return receipt or something, a return receipt wouldn't prove what stamp was used on the postcard, just that a postcard was sent. The lawyers could have simply said "yes, we received a postcard, but it had an ordinary stamp on it and we just threw it in the trash", or something like that.

[–] bthr 16 years ago

maybe he got a receipt for the letter when he mailed it.

[–] puschit-1 15 years ago

He had someone with him who kept track of all money he spent and what assets he purchased. I forgot, I think it was a woman. I am pretty sure that it's sufficient if she witnesses the cancellation of the stamp.

The real question is, though, why didn't he buy more stamps and write to his entire family and baseball team?
The answer to this and similar questions is: Because it would make a boring movie. The movie is way better if you are not digging for plot holes.

[–] stevenackerman69 13 years ago

He couldn't just spend the money on one thing. Also, that one stamp was rare and he was able to spend money buying it. Other stamps would've been chump change.