“...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.
I just don’t get it.
If I won a lottery ticket and gave it to you or someone else, it wouldn’t be right to cash it in ? That would be immoral?
And if I wrote my first name on the lottery ticket you couldn’t cash it in ? ? ?
So it would be ok if the father had just put his last name on the ticket and then sent up one of his sons to make the shot?
I just don’t see this as some great moral dilemma, and the insurance company is one I never want to do any business with.
I wondered the same thing; it’s a minor, so he likely didn’t have his own money. They were all to happy to sell the raffle tickets and presumably knew people were buying them for their kids - they should have told people not to purchase them for their kids, or others, if they intended to be so stringent in their other requirements.
What if the person who won the rights to make the shot had been a paraplegic?
Would that person then have had the right to select a nominee to try the shot?
The fact that they let SOMEBODY even try the shot implies they were willing to take the risk and agreed to be bound by the results.
It's quite possible they did and the father was instructed not to reveal it.
The insurance company had to take a stand on the contest rules because if they hadn't then they would have set a precedence that could impact future similar contests........