Thanks Dad...
I very sincerely applaud the father in this case. This is honesty and good values in action. Bravo!
It kind of reminds me of the story of the fellow who shot the grizzly bear... sometimes you are a fool if you speak up and ruin yourself! Or, like my mother loved to say, “en boca cerrada no entran moscas” (flies don’t get into a closed mouth).
Fair is fair. Of course, dad never should have let the wrong kid take the shot.
No, The way is to give BOTH Boys half.
IOW, fraud.
Any excuse to get out of the contract. A weasel move. Dad should have kept his mouth shut. Lesson learned.
“...written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.”
If I paid for the ticket for my 8 year old, would I have to take the shot to win the prize?
If an older kid gave away his ticket to a younger kid without any money to buy one for himself, would that kid be disqualified?
I’ve got to congratulate the dad for his integrity, and I’m glad to see that the insurance company ponied up some substantial sum of money for a charity, but I think the would have been classier still if they gave something tangible to the kid who made the shot.
Well, first off, if the rules state that then the company can legally not pay, though I think in the face of public sentiment they probably should.
Second, though some are applauding the father for speaking up, I wonder if he did so out of honesty or because the kid who actually made the shot wanted the glory?
Everyone is missing the point, to give the money to them when the kids didn’t follow the rules would be rewarding lying and falsehoods, the father knew this and spoke up instead of taking the money.
They are in no way weaseling out of paying them, they are simply stating that they called for one persona and another made the shot, to have taken the money would be fraud.
Please stop hooting and hollering that the company should pay up, they should do no such thing since it would be rewarding dishonesty.
The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released,
Seems an exact explanation would be necessary her.
That poorly written sentence does not say what some think it says. The way it is written, the writer is speculating why the money was not awarded.
If it was known why the money was not awarded, this part of the sentence could not have been true, and would not have been needed: The exact reasoning for not awarding the money was not released
If the speculative part of the sentence was known to be true, it should been worded: it was written into the policy, without the qualifier that preceded that: "but more than likely".
Extremely poor reporting and writing. And no one can know from this exactly what the rules of the contest were.
What about the fact that the kid making the shot generated a ton of good will for the insurance co. and entertainment value for the attendees. Nevermind all the pubicity afterward?
Surely that is worth a lot just in advertising.
The father was right and honest to explain what happened, but the company could have handled it better.
The company could have saved itself a lot of bad will if they had just told the father “hey, thanks for the honesty but lets keep this between ourselves”
This is just my opinion and one (possibly better) solution for everyone involved
That sux. Minnesooooota nice loses except in God’s eyes.