We recognize, however, that a split of authority exists regarding whether a contest rule that makes the decision of the promoter or sponsor final precludes judicial review of the decision. See, e.g., Johnson, supra; Bridges v Georgiana, 211 N.J. Super. 427; 511 A.2d 1255 (1985); Carlini v United States Rubber Co, 8 Mich. App. 501; 154 N.W.2d 595 (1967); anno: Private contests and lotteries: entrants' rights and remedies, 64 ALR4th 1021, ยงยง 12-13b, pp 1065-1068.
Ahrens v. McDaniel, 287 S.C. 63, 336 S.E.2d 505, 507 (App. 1985). See Bridges v. Georgiana, 211 N.J. Super. 427, 511 A.2d 1255 (1985); Wassyng v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 92 F. Supp. 275 (S.D.N.Y. 1950) (in the absence of fraud or gross mistake implying bad faith, the judging organization's decision is binding); Furgiele v. Disabled American Veterans Service Foundation, 116 F. Supp. 375 (S.D.N.Y. 1952), aff'd, 207 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1953) (plaintiffs were bound by the decision of the committee in the absence of fraud, gross mistake, irregularity, or lack of good faith); Gillmore v. Procter Gamble Co., 417 F.2d 615 (6th Cir. 1969) ("the courts will not interfere with the decision of the judges, unless there has been a fraud, intentional or gross mistake, irregularity, or lack of good faith"). A good example of the rationale of these cases is set out in National Amateur Bowlers, Inc. v. Tassos, 715 F. Supp. 323 D.Kan. 1989).