Follow-up To Everyone Saying “sole Discretion” Means The Sponsor Can Do Whatever They Want

Location: Florida
Just wanted to follow up because a lot of people keep bringing up the sole discretion clause and the $100 liability cap like that automatically means I have no argument.
I’ve been looking into Florida case law, and from what I understand, it’s not necessarily that simple.
In Sepe v. City of Safety Harbor (2000) and Cox v. CSX Intermodal (1999), the courts discussed how contractual discretion can still be subject to good faith. So just because a contract says “sole discretion” doesn’t necessarily mean a company can do whatever it wants.
There’s also Giunto v. Florida Coca-Cola Bottling Co. (1999), which actually involved a contest and addressed when a judge’s decision can be challenged.
As for the $100 liability cap, Gessa v. Manor Care of Florida (2011) shows that liability limitations aren’t automatically enforceable in every situation. I understand that case involved different circumstances, so I’m not saying it directly applies here.
My biggest issue is that the rules specifically say the sponsor WILL select one potential winner. There’s no minimum number of entries, no minimum judging score, and the contest ran its full duration without being canceled.
So if I really am the only eligible entrant, how does that suddenly become a reason not to award the prize? Especially when the sponsor wrote the rules themselves.
I’m not saying I’m guaranteed to win or that these cases automatically prove anything. I’m just questioning the idea that two clauses completely eliminate any legal recourse.
I’m also not looking for a cash payout. I just want the experience that was advertised.
If I’m misunderstanding these cases, I’m open to being corrected. I’d actually appreciate someone explaining how Florida courts would interpret this rather than just saying “sole discretion, end of story.”