See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid?
The parties, having decided they wish to be legally bound, have to agree on what they will be bound to.
Now, "thirty-seven fifty" may mean $37.50 or $3,750 but, just because it has two possible meanings doesn't mean that it is an ambiguous statement. What the waitress said was said in the context of a very, very upscale restaurant and an impartial observer would probably assume the waitress meant the latter value rather than the former.
Consumer protection law would probably not help the patron either. Most such laws make "misleading and deceptive" conduct unlawful but the test is if a reasonable person in the circumstances would be misled or deceived and the answer is: probably not.
Legally, the patron is probably bound to the contract for $3750. Whether enforcing the contract is good business is not a legal question.
To clarify: there is no doubt that a binding contract exists - the restaurant offered a bottle of wine as consideration and required the patron to pay: this offer was accepted. What can be disputed is the amount the patron is bound to pay - the fact that the restaurant believed one thing and the patron another is not sufficient to make the contract void due to lack of genuine consent.