[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."

How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?

[Baynative]

VERY GOOD POINT. If Nick's name was called rather than just a ticket number then brother Nate was not eligible to stand in. But, if it was just the ticket number that was called, things are different.

In your example; a person could buy five tickets and give them to different people who would all be eligible if their own number was called. That would change the way the story seems to read.

[az_gila]

How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?

---

“...written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.”

Sounds like the rules were written by the insurance company.

I wonder if they were transmitted to the contestants? ...or did they just read the policy after the one in a million shot?

[Mila]

"How were the rules written: Ticket holder or Purchaser?

From the article-"On Wednesday, the company decided against giving Nate the $50,000 and instead announced it will donate $20,000 to Minnesota youth hockey in the boys' names.

The exact reasoning for not awarding the money wasn't released,, but more than likely it was written into the policy that the winner of the $50,000 had to be the person who purchased the ticket.

The writer here seems to be speculating on rules that may or may not exist.