This month, Nate Smith, 11, had a dream come true for a little boy. He made an 89-foot shot at a charity hockey event in Fairbault, Minnesota for a $50,000 prize. He had taken his twin brother Nick’s place when Nick went outside shortly before his name was called. Now the company, Odds on Promotion, is saying that he cannot receive the prize because it was not his ticket.
The company will make a $20,000 contribution to charity in his name instead. Why not $50,000? Moreover, since the boys have identical DNA signature, couldn’t this be viewed from a socio-biological standpoint as a gray area?
The father, Pat Smith, did the honest thing the next day and said that it was actually the other twins’ ticket and that sent the company lawyers to work. The rules say that it must be the ticket of the person participating — an understandable rule since you could enlist a ringer. However, this was his twin brother who had stepped out of the stadium.
What do you think?
Source: ABC
(sorry about the garbled part of that post. For some reason when I post it will not let me see the entire poat as I am wrting it and sometimes not even as it is being posted.)
I googled it and found this article that stated in part:”Nick’s name was drawn to take the shot, but he was not present when his name was called. Nate, Nick’s identical twin brother, took the shot instead. Vinar said that he asked Nate for his name, and that he responded with his brothers’ name.
“I asked the kid. That’s all I could do. I asked if he was Nick Smith, and he said, ‘Yes.’ (Pat) wasn’t with him at the time, and it’s not like he had a drivers license to show me. I did what I could do,” Vinar said. Nick’s name was drawn to take the shot, but he was not present when his name was called. Nate, Nick’s identical twin brother, took the shot instead. Vinar said that he asked Nate for his name, and that he responded with his brothers’ name.
show me. I did what I could do,” Vinar said.
http://faribault.com/content/prize-denied-whirlwind-continues-smith-family
That is an outright lie. Had he said No, but I have his ticket maybe it would have had a different outcome or the anger at the company would be well placed but it appears this was an outright lie at the point where the truth needed to be told.
Mike Spindell:
“Fraud: A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.”
There might not have been any mens rea, but there definitely was fraud here.
The brother knew it wasn’t his ticket.
“Bodice busitng”? Do you have fantasies about the St. Pauli Beer girl? 🙂
“I dont think Dr. Kant would agree with you.”
Roco,
I think you’re confusing me with someone else, I haven’t and won’t read Kant, philosophers don’t interest me. though I will admit he probably had a lot more important things to say than a hack, bodice busting writer, who compared her thoughts to Aristotle.
As for your comparison with raping ones’ twin brothers sister, it was absurd.
There was no fraud here, only a kid reacting to the moment, without the intent to deceive.
Mike Spindell:
No, it is a pertinent question in this world. It is the exact same concept. Using your similarities to deceive.
Now maybe in your fantasy world it doesnt break down to that elemental construct but in this world that is what it amounts to.
It is exactly the same. How can you approve of one and not the other? It is the same exact thing. You are taking, by deception, that which you have no right to take.
A person is committing fraud, no way around it, except in your fantasy land where 2+2 = whatever you feel at the moment.
I dont think Dr. Kant would agree with you.
“So it is OK to bang you brothers girlfriend because you look like him?”
Roco,
In a fantasy land where apples equal oranges, that possibly my be a legitimate and pertinent question.
Mike Spindell:
I think most people would call that rape.
Mike Spindell:
So it is OK to bang you brothers girlfriend because you look like him?
gbk:
Who are the warmongers? and how does that statement let them off the hook?
Quit thinking like a Marxist, it is passe and his philosophy is on its way out. I know that dialectical materialism shit is hard to give up but do try.
I hate to sound the cynic here but forgetting the stupidity of the promotions company in doing the opposite of promoting, the family should have gotten the $50,000. The idea of this being a “teachable moment” is laughable to me. It was obviously very hard to make the shot, or the prize wouldn’t have been $50,000. The other twin made the shot, but having been at many sporting events taking others, the family bought the tickets and in which one of the seats they each sat was not relevant. What if the mother had to make the shot and gave it to one of their kids?
As for the “sanctity” of contracts in the business world that’s applying a false patina of morality, to the nature of the act. If a person bounces a check the term is “dishonored” even if the funds were clearing. If you deposit a check in the same bank they will probably “hold” the money for a few days, if its from out of town even though from let’s say an insurance company. This is despite the fact that the check can be almost instantaneously cleared via computer. That’s known as “kiting” your money, but the banks do it all the time because with millions of people the interest they get mounts up.
Contracts are abrogated all the time by businesses with small companies and individuals because at time the cost of possible litigation is less than the obligation. There is nothing “moral” about contracts between companies and individuals. The real “lesson” taught to the kids was don’t depend on the honesty of business because it is an honesty born in in convenience and also aborted at the convenience of a given company. The charitable donations will be taken by the company no doubt. The real reason the father fessed up and should have was because otherwise the wrong child would have received credit. That was the “teachable moment” and the father did the right thing by his children.
As for the charity picked “the Owatonna Youth Hockey Association in which Nick and Nate Smith compete and the Faribault Youth Hockey Association, the original beneficiary of the promotion”, I could think of dozens more deserving, but then the promotion’s beneficiary gets a little bonus.
If it was a typical raffle then it went to the holder of the ticket. If he found it sitting on the ground he was still the holder of the ticket. There have been cases around Powerball (I believe) about the prize going to the guy possessing the betting slip. Not sure how this drawing worked.
“I find it fascinating that anyone would support fraud, no matter how petty it may seem. There are somethings in life worth more than money and your personal ethics/code of conduct is one of them.”
It’s amazing how Roco’s moral syllogisms denigrate a child but let the warmongers off the hook of fraud.
Apparently it was a raffle and not general admission seating…does that make a difference? I am unsure….the odds of making that type were astronomical…I will say that…the insurance company gambles….and you gamble when you purchase…But for the honesty of the party would anybody have been the wiser….
‘The company will make a $20,000 contribution to charity in his name instead.’
I never thought there would be a time when I sided with the big nasty corporation. BUT, ‘The rules say that it must be the ticket of the person participating — an understandable rule since you could enlist a ringer. ‘
well he did enlist a ringer….it was his twin brother. And yes, give the company credit for giving 20, 000 x2 for cryin’ out loud. That was actually a decent compromise….sheesh….
Noun 1. dead ringer – a person who is almost identical to another ~Free Dictionary
and from Websters;
a (1): one that enters a competition under false representations (2): imposter, fake
b: one that strongly resembles another —often used with dead
let’s see what a dna test says.
The insurance company is correct that they do not have to pay the “winner” since it was his brother’s ticket, but as said above, I don’t think the promo company will be getting any good press out of this stupid decision.
The kid made the “impossible” shot … the father made the correct decision in taking advantage of a teachable moment which was another “impossible” shot … the kids get the money.
” Due to contractual breaches and legal implications, the company is” getting exactly what it earned … ill-gotten gains.
“Give the kid the money he won.” -mespo
You’re a wise man…. ( Most of the time, I agree with you. 🙂 )
Bill and Fred are long-time friends who attend the game. Bill steps out to use the restroom and says to Fred, “Here, if they call my number, you go.”
Is this scenario relevantly different?
I feel like I should repay the cookies my son won on Bozo’s Circus. We attended a taping of Bozo’s Circus in Chicago. Boys and girls were given separately numbered tickets. When it was time for the GRAAAND PRIIIZE Game (they pronounced it that way), the “Bozoputer” picked the ticket being held by my younger son, age 6. He froze. His brother, 18 months older, switched tickets with him as they were readying to call another boy number. He gave his own name when Bozo asked. He won a box of Archway Cookies, a board game, glow sticks, and a dozen Subway sandwiches. He missed the last bucket for $50 and a bicycle.
My aunt always embellished the story by saying, “and then a ceiling fan fell down, and Bozo’s balls landed in bucket 1.”