True.

Untrue unless you purposely break the mug.

Dont pay a single cent.

Law students or those who practice/studies law would know this. Basic contract law.

Ur friend got conned liao. As would most of the Malaysians.

No. An agreement would need an offer, consideration and an acceptance.

That sign as one of the forumer said, is just an INVITATION to offer. Even if it is an offer, there is no acceptance from the other party.

Its like this. A shop puts up a sign (be it a once broken, etc, etc, or a price tag) = INVITATION to offer. (this means that the shop is inviting you to enter into a contract)

Once you bring the item to the cashier, it is a sign that you have ACCEPTED the offer. The price on the price tag would be the CONSIDERATION. (contrary to popular belief, the shop is not the one making the offer when someone buys something. Its the consumer. The moment you give the item to the cashier, it is understood that you're saying "I agree to the consideration of this item, and I am offering to buy this from you).

Once the cashier scans/keys in the item, it is an ACCEPTANCE, and you and the shop have entered into a contract.

A contract is only valid if there is an offer, acceptance, and consideration. A sign that says "once broken considered sold" is not an offer, and you breaking it is not an acceptance. Bring it to any court, they'll say the same thing. Thats just how it is.

You can actually. This simple basic contract law is the assignment/exam questions for most of the law students in Malaysia, as it depicts a real-life scenario where contract law is applied.

Tell the owner that you wont pay. And if the owner insists, just bring the matter to Consumer's Tribunal. Its like a small court, but its main purpose is to protect consumer's rights. This issue is one of the rare consumer rights that people do not know about.

Yeah, you can argue it that way. Thats the thing about law. Its open to argument, but at the same time, it is guided by the law.

If you argued it that way, then the consumer would need not to pay the full price of the item. The sign is still not applicable, as if you argued it that way, what you will get is DAMAGES, not the selling price. Damages would be payment made to party that has suffered a loss due to another party. The damages amount would most of the time, be less that the real value.

I was talking strictly on how the consumer would be able to avoid paying the full price by applying contract law. Damages and the owner's argument is another thing altogether, but either way, the sign dont mean a thing. For something to be sold, basic contract law has to be applied. Which, in this case, it doesnt. A better sign should be "If you break this, you are eligible to pay etc, etc". The fact that the term "SOLD" is there, contract law is applicable.

(Of course, this is just to my understanding and knowledge of law. I might be wrong, but Im pretty sure Im not.)

As I've said before, the sign is NOT AN OFFER. It is an INVITATION TO OFFER.

Read up my post again and try to understand it instead of just asking me to counter your argument.

Make up your mind. One minute you're saying that "you broke the item, you took the offer" and now you're saying "you broke it, therefore you're accepting the invitation to offer"

Deng.

Of course, if one were to really debate this matter into depth, it would be looooooooooooooong, as thats what law is about. Law is absolute, but at the same time, it is open to interpretation. There's numerous cases whereby a jury/judge's decision is completely opposite compared to the same case before.

You'd need to consider a lot of things and would enter into a long argument from both sides.

The short and simple answer would probably be like what the lawyer said. You're not bound. The long answer would be, you're not bound ONLY if - etc, etc, etc.

Oh, I just remembered.

Even if what you're saying is applicable (which, most probably is not) the party who made the offer can withdraw the offer. Sure, you might say that the shop has already accepted the offer, and the contract is bound, but if the customer breaks the contract, then it becomes a breach of contract, which is another issue altogether, but which still, only entitles the shopkeeper to damages and not the price of the item.

Basically, no matter how you go at it, if you really argue the whole thing, it'll be long and technical.

Once you've ordered the food, you have offered to the restaurant that you would buy the food from them.

When they served it to you, they have accepted your offer. Consideration is the price of the food.

Contract is bound. So, you cannot run away from the restaurant, unless you wanna break the contract.

If its a small thing, obviously nobody would wanna go through the hassle la. Its just good to have knowledge so that it might help you in the future later (who knows, you might suka suka break a 10 thousand bucks thing, then u mau pay ka?)

Adoi, I duwan answer cuz this is trolling question liao.

Technically, its the same thing. But mamak might just hit you on the head and belasah u cukup cukup if you dont wanna pay. But then of course, its within your rights not to pay, and its within your rights to sue the mamak for belasah-ing you.

Its just a matter of whether you'd be willing to go through all the trouble for a kari kepala ikan or not.

Yeah, you can.