To: Cheetahcat
The rightful contestant did not make the shot. So, the company had no responsibility to give the money to surrogate. They made a wise and charitable move in donating such a large amount to the youth organization.
The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat.
12 posted on
09/01/2011 8:37:33 AM PDT by
Baynative
(If the government was in charge of the desert , we'd soon have a shortage of sand.)
To: Baynative
"The rightful contestant did not make the shot. So, the company had no responsibility to give the money to surrogate. They made a wise and charitable move in donating such a large amount to the youth organization. The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat."
How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?
15 posted on
09/01/2011 8:40:35 AM PDT by
Cheetahcat
(Carnival commie side show, started November 4 2008 ,A date that will live in Infamy.)
To: Baynative
The father also made a wise move by teaching his boys it is not okay to cheat.
Explain to me just how this was cheating. The father paid for the ticket, what difference did it make which kid took the shot? There was no cheating involved, they paid their money and took the shot and made it and he made it fair and square, no cheating was involved. Only the most twisted minds could consider this cheating. The only cheating that went on here was by the insurance company.
43 posted on
09/01/2011 9:50:01 AM PDT by
calex59
To: Baynative
Bullshit, the company made an offer they weren’t willing to stand behind.
They only ‘gave’ 20k instead of the 50k promised. If it’s not about the money they would have donated all of it.
As for the kids, they should have paid the kids what they won. A honourable company would have done so, instead of welshing.
44 posted on
09/01/2011 9:50:34 AM PDT by
BenKenobi
(Honkeys for Herman!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson