# Parties agreeing to a bet with mutual ignorance of terminology **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 23, 2020, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845 "2020-01-23T15:09:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Calavera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calavera/32/70_2.png) [@Calavera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calavera)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/1 "2020-01-23T15:09:59Z")
Inspired by Bricker’s thread but not designed to be an exact parallel. Assume that the correct, accurate definition of a dozen is 14. If anybody looks it up in any authoritative text they will see 1 dozen is 14. Somehow however a significant majority of the general public use dozen as though it means 12. (If you happen to think a dozen means 12 consider yourself one of the group who never looked it up and somehow skated through without ever finding out the real meaning of the term). Assume Bob and Jeff have a bet on the SuperBowl over whether the 49ers get at least a dozen points. They get 13 and Bob claims victory because they got more than 12, Jeff claims victory because they got less than 14 As an arbiter who do you award the bet to? You can assume Jeff almost certainly realised Bob was thinking “above 12” when he made the bet. Does it make a difference if both people thought they meant “above 12” but Jeff subsequently found out the actual meaning of “dozen” after the bet was struck? This is not really a legalistic query but those who wish to approach it from that perspective may. It’s more what “feels” right to you. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/2 "2020-01-23T15:15:01Z")
I am not a lawyer, but based on what I learned from Judge Wapner, I would think there was no “[meeting of the minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds)” and therefore the contract is null and void. On the other hand, such ambiguities are why lawyers are necessary in society. ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/3 "2020-01-23T15:16:12Z")
> [@Calavera](#): > > As an arbiter who do you award the bet to? > > You can assume Jeff almost certainly realised Bob was thinking “above 12” when he made the bet. > > . Normally, I’d award the bet to the correct definition of a “dozen”. But in this case, Jeff is being a dishonest little weasel. So I would not feel inclined to award Jeff. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/4 "2020-01-23T15:16:20Z")
The ideal approach would be to read both party’s minds to see what their intended/assumed definition of a “dozen” was at the time of the bet being placed. Since that can’t be done, though, I would stick by the legalistic dictionary definition. It would be like court, where the letter of the law prevails over the spirit of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/5 "2020-01-23T15:56:17Z")
Any ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the actual facts. As the OP notes, any authoritative reference will tell you what number a dozen is. The only way I would rule that the two parties should be held to a definition of a dozen being some other number is if there is clear unambiguous evidence that they both agreed to that other meaning at the time they made the bet. And cases where such clear unambiguous evidence would exist would be very rare. I would also say that using the wrong value of a dozen for this hypothetical confuses the issue. I think it would have been much clearer if the OP had said that Bob and Jeff both wrongfully believed a dozen was fourteen. It’s more difficult to form a correct conclusion when you’re asked to base it on a false premise. ---
**Author:** ![Calavera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calavera/32/70_2.png) [@Calavera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calavera)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/6 "2020-01-23T16:09:24Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I would also say that using the wrong value of a dozen for this hypothetical confuses the issue. I think it would have been much clearer if the OP had said that Bob and Jeff both wrongfully believed a dozen was fourteen. It’s more difficult to form a correct conclusion when you’re asked to base it on a false premise. I was undecided about either using the impeached/impeached and removed confusion that inspired this, 2 nonsense terms like flurging and burging, or another real life thing. I think it’s better to make a dozen 14 in the hypo because it helps to put the reader into the mindset of where the wrong thing is still almost ubiquitously believed. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2020, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/7 "2020-01-23T16:34:26Z")
If I was trying to arbitrate, I’d go by the actual definition and use that, unless there was a clear statement at the time of the bet that they were intending to use ‘12’. Trying to guess who thought what without some kind of clearly written reference is just a mess, and people who are using a clearly defined term to mean something other than its formal definition during a bet shouldn’t be making bets or asking me to arbitrate. Note that according to the thread you’re ‘inspired by’ here, both people had made reference to ‘dozen’ meaning ‘14’ and not ‘12’ during the original conversation, so your example here is kind of reversed. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/8 "2020-01-24T03:47:17Z")
Issues of this kind actually have arisen in contract law. Fuel containers or vehicles used to be signed “Inflammable” . There were liability cases in which one party thought it meant “not flammable” and the other thought “subject to becoming inflamed” resulting in misunderstanding the need for precaution. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/9 "2020-01-24T04:00:39Z")
If it were clear that both parties meant 12, I’m inclined to award it to Bob. UNLESS: Bob is being a dick about some related issue. Let’s say the wager was “One thing of my choice that you have in your pocket,” and Bob waited until Jeff stuck his hand in his pocket to see what was there, and said, “AHA! Now your wedding ring is in your pocket, you have to give that to me!” I’d consider that perversion of the original wager sufficiently dickish and dependent on a technicality that I’d construe the original bet as strictly against Bob as I could. If he’s gonna make the wager be awful, based on being technically correct, I’ll rule against him by being technically correct. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/10 "2020-01-24T04:08:08Z")
What if Jeff was a baker? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/11 "2020-01-24T04:18:54Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I am not a lawyer, but based on what I learned from Judge Wapner, I would think there was no “[meeting of the minds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meeting_of_the_minds)” and therefore the contract is null and void. On the other hand, such ambiguities are why lawyers are necessary in society. This. The parties failed to define a key term in their contract leading to the contract being void, because there was no common meaning, agreed to by both parties. (I’m assuming that the OP is saying that each one sincerely believes his meaning of «dozen».) Failure of consideration leads to failure of the contract. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/12 "2020-01-24T04:37:07Z")
And my parents said that television would rot my brain. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/13 "2020-01-24T04:53:08Z")
We had a thread just recently (sorry, not going to search for it right now) having to do with the naming of numbers being different in British and American number naming conventions. (It was that thread about why documents have numbers written out in numerals and also in words.) I pointed out that certain numbers-written-in-words could actually refer to different numbers in the two systems. I remarked that I’ve read of court cases over disputes in high-dollar (or was it high-pound?) contracts where the parties had different notions of what numbers they were agreeing on. Somebody got a big bad surprise in cases like that. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/14 "2020-01-24T05:01:44Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > We had a thread just recently (sorry, not going to search for it right now) having to do with the naming of numbers being different in British and American number naming conventions. (It was that thread about why documents have numbers written out in numerals and also in words.) I pointed out that certain numbers-written-in-words could actually refer to different numbers in the two systems. I remarked that I’ve read of court cases over disputes in high-dollar (or was it high-pound?) contracts where the parties had different notions of what numbers they were agreeing on. > > Somebody got a big bad surprise in cases like that. Like when the British used the word “billion’” for the number Americans call a “trillion”. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/15 "2020-01-24T05:16:02Z")
> [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](#): > > Like when the British used the word “billion’” for the number Americans call a “trillion”. But in a case I remember reading about some years ago, it had an unhappy ending for somebody. The contract did NOT get voided just because there was no “meeting of the minds”. Instead, the judge ruled that one of the parties was right and the other was wrong, and as a result, somebody owed somebody a massively ruinous amount of money the he hadn’t budgeted for. Oops. ---
**Author:** ![Melbourne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5e925/32.png) [@Melbourne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Melbourne)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/16 "2020-01-24T05:56:34Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > We had a thread just recently (sorry, not going to search for it right now) having to do with the naming of numbers being different in British and American number naming conventions. (It was that thread about why documents have numbers written out in numerals and also in words.) I pointed out that certain numbers-written-in-words could actually refer to different numbers in the two systems. I remarked that I’ve read of court cases over disputes in high-dollar (or was it high-pound?) contracts where the parties had different notions of what numbers they were agreeing on. > > Somebody got a big bad surprise in cases like that. Odds are quoted differently in Aus and in the USA. If Bob thought he was getting 3:1, and Jeff thought he was giving 3:1… well that’s why you have a third person holding the money. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 6:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/17 "2020-01-24T06:22:22Z")
Bets are not legally enforceable. So the question of how a court would rule, or what advice a lawyer would give, does not really arise. The OP asks about an arbiter. So suppose Bob and Jeff belong to a club which fosters betting among its members, and provides the service of arbitrating betting disputes, and it’s a club rule that if you don’t accept the arbitration you are expelled. Bub and Jeff submit their dispute to the arbiter. What happens? The obvious answer is that it depends on the rules of the club. The rules may offer principles for the resolution of betting disputes. The principle _might_ be that the arbiter should apply the same rules as a court would apply to a contract dispute. Or they be something quite different. Or they might be silent, leaving it to the arbiter to adopt whatever principles he thought appropriate. It seems to me that there are two basic approaches to this: The subjective approach: did Bill and Jeff actually both agree, whether it be on 12 or on 14? If the arbiter isn’t satisfied that they did, he simply directs the stake be returned and the bet regarded as never having been made. The objective approach: arbiter asks himself “what would a hypothetica neutral third party, observing Bill and Jeff making their bet, probably think that Bill and Jeff had agreed?” If there’s a clear answer to that question, the bet is enforce on those terms. If there is no clear answer, the stake is returned and the bet regarded as never having been made. ---
**Author:** ![Asuka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@Asuka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asuka)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/18 "2020-01-24T10:27:15Z")
I had a massive argument with a friend over when “Next Sunday” is if today was Thursday. Does it mean the Sunday 3 days from now or the Sunday 10 days from now? I assumed it meant 10 days while he assumed 3 days. Yes the argument was over us agreeing to meet somewhere and him showing up 7 days early. ---
**Author:** ![Dead\_Cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Dead\_Cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dead_Cat)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/19 "2020-01-24T14:09:25Z")
That one’s easy - if you meant 3 days’ time, you would have said “this Sunday”. But really, you’re both at fault and should buy each other a pornographic calendar for Christmas for the next 20 years. ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2020, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845/20 "2020-01-24T15:53:16Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > Bets are not legally enforceable. So the question of how a court would rule, or what advice a lawyer would give, does not really arise. Do you have a cite for that? While many bets are illegal under gambling laws, if it is legal to make the bet in the first place, then the parties have a contract and can litigate it in court like any other contract. > **[Gambling Contract Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.](https://definitions.uslegal.com/g/gambling-contract/)** > > A gambling contract is an agreement to engage in a gamble. In a gambling contract two parties wager something, especially money, for a chance to win a prize or an amount. Contracts related to legal > **[Legal Definition of Wager](https://www.upcounsel.com/legal-def-wager)** > > A wager is a bet; a contract by which two parties or more agree that a certain sum of money, or other thing, shall be paid or delivered to one of them. > **[Can the £50,000 wager I lost in a drunken poker game be enforced?](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jobs/john-timpson/11862522/Can-the-50000-wager-I-lost-in-a-drunken-poker-game-be-enforced.html)** > > I wagered a 5pc stake in my company and I lost. Do I have to honour the bet? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parties-agreeing-to-a-bet-with-mutual-ignorance-of-terminology/846845.md?page=2)