contract-law
Contract law: implicit payment?
<p>If I enter an establishment that offers drinks/coffee/food and say "I'd like a coffee/beer/whatever" and the waiter gives it to me, shouldn't they explicitly mention that it's not for free?</p>

<p>If some person is handling pens with ads on a corner, and I say "I'd like a pen" could the person just reply that it's $1?</p>

<p>Would the scenarios above be any different if a mentally challenged person went through them?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If I enter an establishment that offers drinks/coffee/food and say "I'd like a coffee/beer/whatever" and the waiter gives it to me, shouldn't they explicitly mention that it's not for free?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. Contracts don't happen in a vacuum - the circumstances described make it abundantly clear to a reasonable person that the drinks are not gifts.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If some person is handling pens with ads on a corner, and I say "I'd like a pen" could the person just reply that it's $1?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes. Just because they give something to someone else doesn't mean they have to give one to you.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Would the scenarios above be any different if a mentally challenged person went through them?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Maybe. However, the mental impairment would need to be <a href="https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/equality-capacity-and-disability-in-commonwealth-laws-dp-81/11-other-issues/incapacity-and-contract-law/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">extreme and obvious</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In order to avoid the contract on the ground of incapacity, the onus is on the party seeking to have the contract avoided to first establish that: (a) the contracting party was unable, due to mental impairment, to understand the contract at the time of formation; and (b) that the other party either knew or ought to have known of the impairment. </p>
</blockquote>

<blockquote>
  <p>If I enter an establishment that offers drinks/coffee/food and say "I'd like a coffee/beer/whatever" and the waiter gives it to me, shouldn't they explicitly mention that it's not for free?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>No. Visitors/customers know very well it is common practice for those establishments to charge an amount in exchange for drinks/coffee/food. That common knowledge satisfies the contract law premise that the "clause" of payment is "entered" <em>knowingly</em> (and willfully) by the establishment and the customer.</p>

<p>In fact, that practice is so common that the establishment makes it very explicit --usually with publicity and notorious signs-- when it intends to provide goods for free. Thus, there are no grounds for you to reasonably expect that the good(s) at issue will be free in an ordinary situation.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If some person is handling pens with ads on a corner, and I say "I'd like a pen" could the person just reply that it's $1?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes (perhaps putting aside any particular scenarios of discrimination on the basis of protected categories).</p>

<p>For instance, the person's intent for the ads on the pens might be to reach a market sector to which you don't belong. Thus, in your case, the person might want an alternative benefit (namely, the amount of $1) to spend his pen/ad on you, since he knows that his advertising/marketing purpose is preempted here.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Would the scenarios above be any different if a mentally challenged person went through them?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>They could be different, as mentioned in the other answer.</p>
