I would disagree with the first. I understand he called in the order. That was when a contract was entered into and he failed to confirm the terms. He had a second chance when he picked up the order, but he just threw them his CC and didn't check the price again. Most restaurants might honor that online price if asked, but he never even looked at the price until well after things were settled. According to the emails they were still willing to correct the total.
In an online transaction, I think the price at checkout is the agreed price, even if the price on the web page is different. If you are dumb enough to checkout without looking, too bad for you. Again, most merchants would fix it, but do they have to? I just think the contact is at the point where you say "I'll take it" and lay down your money.
Well, the courts are a valid option if a contract is being violated, and prices on a website are a contract offer.
I think the libertarian ideal would be to give some sort of BB organization some teeth - check for BB accred for any business, they go after any that falsely show the symbol like rabid dogs, and work to ensure that any business they give the rating to are on the up-and-up.
In this case, make a report to the rating company, and they monitor that his website(s) are fixed expediently to show the correct prices and perhaps be adjusted somewhat in design to make it obvious which location the prices are good for.
But while websites are generally easier to update than print media, I'd offer them some of the same allowance I'd give with printed menus and such - something like the restaurant isn't allowed to show a history of immediately raising prices after releasing a menu, but it's assumed that prices may and probably will change. Confirm with the order taker to be sure of the most accurate price. If you're actually ordering and paying on line, the price at checkout needs to be accurate.
