I think you are right, but I’m not all the way there yet. (If wagering contracts are enforceable in this kingdom). We are assuming that a “dozen” is technically, by the book, 14, but a lot of people think it is really 12, right? So Bob and Jeff differed in their view so there wasn’t a meeting of the minds.
I could go with that except that the term “dozen” isn’t ambiguous, right? If a lot of people believe incorrectly that a dozen is 12 (in our example) don’t they bear the risk of loss?
What if I have a unique definition of some popular term? Can I really get out of a contract by being stupid? I’m trying to think of an example, but the best I can come up with is that we have a bet about who “retires” first for the evening. Now you know that retire means to go to bed and I know it, but what if some dunce thought it meant to quit working first tonight? I don’t think someone gets out of a contract by ignorance of known words.
If it was truly misunderstood because of an ambiguity, then we are more directly in the contract hornbook. Like, for example, we bet on who gets “home” first and you thought that meant landing at the airport and I thought it meant through the front door. That is more of a failure in definitions, but not one where there is a truly correct one.
That’s a big reason why my ‘if I was the arbitrator’ forces them to use the real, established definition. I don’t like people having an out by claiming ‘oh, I meant this weird thing’ when it comes time to pay up, and I don’t like to encourage people to use weird semantic tricks like digging up obscure meanings of ‘retire’. I think that making a bet based on an ill-defined number is a bad idea, and if dozen had a different colloquial meaning I would say that you shouldn’t make a bet using it, just like you shouldn’t make a bet that involved ‘a couple of fish’ (that can mean ‘exactly two’ or ‘a few’).
As I think about it, isn’t this a “Unilateral Mistake” by which the erring party must be bound by his mistake unless the other party knew that the first party was making a mistake yet let him do it anyways?
My wife and I got into an argument recently because I said that “the door is ready to hang.”
She said it wasn’t, because the wall isn’t ready. But, that’s not what I meant - the real definition of “hanging a door” is to install it in it’s frame - which is what I wanted to have done.
Taking a framed door and installing it in a wall is also (sloppy) called “hanging” it, but that’s not technically correct. If you do a quick google search, you will see articles on how to hang a pre-hung door, which is kind of redundant.
If there is both a dictionary definition and a differing definition, each used by a wide number of people, then I would say it is an ambiguous description. Meanings of word aren’t defined by dictionaries alone, but by actual usage. What makes a dictionary, published by some private company, the authoritative source for legal interpretation? If there is a divergence in meaning, with some people using «dozen» to mean «14» and some using it to mean «12», all in good faith, then it’s an ambiguous term.
That’s a different example from the OP, who stipulates that there are two common meanings to «dozen».
Winston Churchill recounts a real—life example over a dispute where two sides were using the same term with differing meanings, leading to confusion.
It was during WWII, at a meeting of a top military committee, composed of high-ranking American military officers and equally high-ranking UK military officers, to coordinate military ops. After discussing one proposal, the British stated that the proposal should be «tabled». A vigorous debate broke out, with the Americans saying it could not possibly be tabled.
Eventually, after a lot of wrangling and bad feelings, they discovered that they all agreed that the proposal should be implemented immediately. The confusion was that in British parliamentary speak, «tabled» is used to mean «set down for an immediate vote», while in US parliamentary speak, «tabled» means «set aside and defer a decision.»
Both sides were quite sincere in their use of the term, but it was ambiguous in that context. It’s a useful anecdote to illustrate the difficulty an ambiguous term can introduce when trying to assess if there’s been a meeting of the minds. In that case, the generals were in agreement, but divided by the ambiguous term. It can work the other way, though: the use of an ambiguous term can mask the fact that the parties are not actually in agreement.
Why do you say it’s a unilateral mistake? Why does a dictionary definition take precedence over what appears to be a general usage (although possibly a minority usage) ? Alternatively, why does a general usage take priority over a dictionary definition, relied on by a wide number of people?
As described by the OP, it strikes me as mutual mistake: the parties used a term, each relying on their understanding of it, and not inquiring whether they were both using the term in the same way.
Another example of ambiguity in words that could lead to a mutual mistake (which I used to good advantage years ago on a law school exam «coughs modestly») is «bluff». Coming from Saskatchewan, I know that a «bluff» means an isolated stand of trees out on the prairies. I have learnt, however, that there are misguided individuals who think that a «bluff» is some sort of hillock or rounded elevation of the land.
If I undertake to deliver goods to the bluff on Smith’s farm by noon on February 1, and I’m there at the stand of trees precisely on time, with the contracted goods, but the other party to the contract (who’s from down east and doesn’t speak proper prairie English) is standing by the hill on Smith’s farm at noon, a couple of miles away, waiting for me, am I in default? If he refuses to pay me citing non-compliance, is he in default?
Not just one private dictionary, but any authoritative text. This is not a situation of dual meanings or evolution of the language, it is one where a lot of people are using it objectively wrong.
I mean, if we are talking about a “spacecraft” is it a mutual mistake to include Apollo XI if one party believes that the moon landing was a hoax? I think there is a limit to this “evolution of language” and dictionaries are a good starting point. At least in the U.S. many cases cite them.