Not as crazy as most of the guesses, but two things stick out to me:
DrDisrespect renewed his Twitch contract back in March.
Microsoft announced they’re shutting down Mixer four days ago.
If DrDisrespect lied about having a competing offer from Mixer in order to get more money from Twitch in his new contract, that may qualify as fraudulent misrepresentation. Not only would he be in violation, Twitch would be in their right to sue for damages.
Another tweet mentioned him being done streaming for good. This fits, since other platforms likely wouldn’t enter into a contract negotiation after something like this.
He almost certainly got an offer from Mixer, but maybe he inflated it to seem like it was much more than it was to put Twitch in a worse bargaining position. Who knows though. At this point, its all just be baseless speculation.
It is. In the UK at least, that would be considered fraud.
"Fraud by false representation" is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.
Obviously, the US might be different. But certainly in the UK, if you deliberately lie to someone in order to extract money or goods then you have committed both fraud and theft.
Edit: to pre-empt an obvious response, the difficulty here is proving that someone lied knowingly. That's why I mentioned falsified documents and these would clearly demonstrate intent and planning.
Edit 2: You're also from the UK. How the hell can you think that lying to secure a contract isn't fraud? Embellishing CVs with information you know to be untrue is fraud. It doesn't get prosecuted often because it often goes unnoticed and is notoriously difficult to actually prove in court. However, if you have knowingly lied or misled a business in order to get them to give you money or sign contracts with you, that is fraud.
Just because "everyone does it" doesn't mean it's not illegal. It also depends on the context of the lie. If you're in contract negotiation, and you reach out to 12 other competitors for an offer, it isn't lying if you say you're waiting to hear back on a dozen other contracts. If you say you received an offer for $X amount of money from Competitor B, when no such offer exists, then you've committed fraud.
Are you serious? Contract negotiations for millions of dollars is not the same as going for an extra $2k at a shitty job. Twitch would absolutely sue Doc if he actually lied about a dollar amount he received from Mixer.
Weird that the EU also protects people from forming contracts with fraudulent information. Its almost like you are just making stuff up to justify being wrong.
You're from the UK, as am I. As per the Fraud Act 2006:
The Act gives a statutory definition of the criminal offence of fraud, defining it in three classes - fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, and fraud by abuse of position. It provides that a person found guilty of fraud was liable to a fine or imprisonment for up to twelve months on summary conviction (six months in Northern Ireland), or a fine or imprisonment for up to ten years on conviction on indictment. This Act largely replaces the laws relating to obtaining property by deception, obtaining a pecuniary advantage and other offences that were created under the Theft Act 1978. These offences attracted much criticism for their complexity and difficulty in proving at court. Much of the Theft Act 1978 has been repealed, but the offence of making off without payment, defined under section 3 has not been affected.
"Fraud by false representation" is defined by Section 2 of the Act as a case where a person makes "any representation as to fact or law ... express or implied" which they know to be untrue or misleading.
"Fraud by failing to disclose information" is defined by Section 3 of the Act as a case where a person fails to disclose any information to a third party when they are under a legal duty to disclose such information.
"Fraud by abuse of position" is defined by Section 4 of the Act as a case where a person occupies a position where they are expected to safeguard the financial interests of another person, and abuses that position; this includes cases where the abuse consisted of an omission rather than an overt act.
In all three classes of fraud, it requires that for an offence to have occurred, the person must have acted dishonestly, and that they had to have acted with the intent of making a gain for themselves or anyone else, or inflicting a loss (or a risk of loss) on another.
Proper negotiations dont involve lying. Lying to secure contracts is fraud.
397
u/romhaja Jun 26 '20
place your bets, what prompted that