Court Opinion

ID: 9546187
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:25:55.670991+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:07.199538
License: Public Domain

BURKE, Justice,
dissenting.
I disagree with the majority. I would reverse and direct entry of judgment in favor of Van Gulik.
Assuming, arguendo, that the raffle sponsor was entitled to introduce a prize-splitting option, the event upon which that option became effective never occurred; there was never a time when only two tickets remained in the barrel. The time did come, however, when only one ticket remained. At that point, I think the die was cast, and that Van Gulik was entitled to the $10,000 grand prize.
It made no real difference whether the other tickets were drawn one at a time, as apparently they were supposed to be, or by the handful. On any given draw, the odds on any remaining ticket being drawn were exactly the same. Thus, there is nothing unfair about enforcing the “last ticket” rule, and I see no legitimate reason not to do so. How can Cooper and McGowan complain, if they get exactly what they bargained for when they bought their tickets?