The below actually occurred over twenty years ago here in IL.
A boy purchased a baseball card at a sport memorabilia shop at significantly less than its actual worth. The store owner was not present at the time and he erred twice, once by failing to property train his assistant re the value of the card and again when he completed the card's price tag.
The true value was $500.00 but as written on the tag it could have been read as either $5.00 or $500.00
The boy specifically asked the clerk, "How much does this card cost?" The clerk replied, "Five dollars."
Not surprisingly the boy jumped at the chance to purchase the valuable baseball card at this much discounted price.
When the owner returned to his store and discovered what had transpired he contacted the boy's parents and asked for either the card back or the additional $495.00. The boy's parents refused and the owner filed a lawsuit.
The court found in favor of the boy and his parents, since there had been a "meeting of the minds" the buyers were not legally obligated to comply with either request of the store owner.
What is the objectivist viewpoint re the above? Ethically speaking, should the boy's parents have returned the card or paid the additional money?