Dollar value in verbal agreements
<p><strong>Background:</strong>
This <a href="https://www.google.com/amp/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/83CF2F88-661C-11E4-90F8-6BF0210D1436?client=ms-android-verizon" rel="nofollow noreferrer">story</a> describes how a waitress told a patron a bottle of wine was "thirty seven fifty" and turned out to be $3,750. It's not mentioned but for the sake of the question assume the price is not listed on the menu and we must go by their word.</p>

<p><strong>Question:</strong>
Does this constitute a verbal agreement and is there specific verbiage the law requires when stating dollar amounts? Like "three thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars" vs "thirty seven fifty"?</p>

<p>It would depend on whether the buyer could reasonably think that the price was $37.50 and not $3,750. If he could, then they didn't have an agreement, they had a misunderstanding, and the seller cannot expect the buyer to pay the amount that the seller had in mind. In this instance, I have a hard time constructing a reasonable scenario where the customer really thought the price was $37.50, but with somewhat different circumstances (Ma and Pa Kettle go to the big city and eat in a restaurant for the first time), it could happen. The party making an offer has to be clear about the offer and cannot use an ambiguous abbreviation of a term to their advantage, knowing that the natural interpretation of the term would induce acceptance where the unnatural interpretation (the un-abbreviated "thirty seven (hundred) fifty dollars") would not. </p>

<p>See <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/6263/what-is-a-contract-and-what-is-required-for-them-to-be-valid">What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The parties, having decided they wish to be legally bound, have to agree on what they will be bound to.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Now, "thirty-seven fifty" may mean $37.50 or $3,750 but, just because it has two possible meanings doesn't mean that it is an ambiguous statement. What the waitress said was said in the context of a very, very upscale restaurant and an impartial observer would probably assume the waitress meant the latter value rather than the former.</p>

<p>Consumer protection law would probably not help the patron either. Most such laws make "misleading and deceptive" conduct unlawful but the test is if a reasonable person <em>in the circumstances</em> would be misled or deceived and the answer is: probably not.  </p>

<p>Legally, the patron is probably bound to the contract for $3750. Whether enforcing the contract is good business is not a legal question.</p>

<p><strong>To clarify:</strong> there is no doubt that a binding contract exists - the restaurant offered a bottle of wine as consideration and required the patron to pay: this offer was accepted. What can be disputed is the amount the patron is bound to pay - the fact that the restaurant believed one thing and the patron another is not sufficient to make the contract void due to lack of genuine consent. </p>

contract-law new-jersey