I never would have thought I could write about my profession and one of my hobbies in a single post, but the moment has arrived thanks to this great article.
The facts are briefly as follows: Kázmér Felméri is roaming Fejér County, extremely hungry. He stops at a tavern and, without paying any attention to the menu, orders a beef stew – lemonade menu. He consumes it with a good appetite, then receives a bill for 21,000 HUF. Following this, he turns somewhat pale and stammers that he has run out of cash, and didn’t even have a card. The waiter politely asks for Kázmér’s car keys as a pledge, which our hero happily hands over. He takes the train home and, after the return trip, settles the bill. (The latter detail is not revealed in the article, but we suspect it happened this way.) The facts are established, let’s play lawyer!
The case raises several questions. What perhaps first comes to the reader’s mind is whether Kázmér must pay the bill if he was not aware of the prices? The answer is that, in the basic case, of course he must. If Kázmér did not look at the available menu, then he was the one at fault. According to a legal principle existing since Roman times, no one may rely on their own fault to gain an advantage. If Kázmér was inattentive and did not act as generally expected in the given situation, then he will be responsible for it. It is proper to look at the menu before we order.
Let’s take the case further! What is the situation if a beef stew menu in the menu is not 21,000 HUF, but 21,000,000 HUF? A healthy sense of justice probably suggests to everyone that a stew menu for such an amount is not entirely fair. A healthy sense of justice is, of course, correct, as usual, from at least two perspectives.
The first is criminal law. Let’s assume the tavern “accidentally” operates with two menus. One contains normal prices, while the other is prepared for less confrontational (foreign) guests. In this one, the prices were “accidentally” mistyped with one or two extra zeros. A printing error; it happens to everyone. The police, however, may rightly say that the suspicion of the crime of fraud has arisen and please step into the competent police station.
The other is civil law. In lawyer-speak, in the case of a restaurant meal, what happens is that the tavern provides a service (cooks and serves a beef stew menu). In exchange for this, Kázmér provides a consideration (pays the price of the menu). If this happens with the prices according to the normal menu, then both pans of Iustitia’s scales are in balance. Everyone in the tavern is happy; the guest is full, and the tavern has received its due.
If there is 21,000,000 HUF in one pan of the scales and a beef stew menu in the other, the question may rightly arise: how balanced are the pans? The answer is: not at all. For this much money, we could even import a handsome wagyu bull/cow pair from Japan (if someone will sell them). And for the price of one stew, we could even start breeding a Hungarian wagyu herd.
If Iustitia’s scales tip too far, this can be cited before the Honorable Court under the legal grounds of gross disparity in value. This means that in the case of a strikingly large difference in value between the service and the consideration, the transaction may be invalid. In the case of free-market prices, gross disparity is often difficult to determine in practice. This is why I intentionally wrote an extreme example for the sake of easier understanding.
The first part ends with this. In the next part, we will discuss whether gross disparity can be applied, according to Doktor Utriusque, to a 21,000 HUF stew menu. Furthermore, we will switch sides, and I will also write about what the tavern owner can do if the very kind consumer guest does not wish to pay. Regardless of whether they ordered a 21,000 HUF stew menu or requested a tourist menu with a small cola and two straws for circa 500 good Hungarian Forints.