With regard to: "What happens if one's mother happens to work at a university canteen and provides you with lunch which you don't have to BUY yet you didn't make it?"
Let me firstly direct u to the definition of a made lunch which I previously outlined:

1. It must have been physically put together in some way prior to consumption, not necessarily at one's place of residence. However it must also have been manipulated by either the person consuming the lunch or someone whom the consumer has not purchased the lunch from.
2. It must not exist in the same physical form as it did when purchased from the shops, i.e. Something must be altered.

Note that the lunch does NOT have to be made by the person consuming it (point 1 of the definition). Since ur mother has made the lunch and u have not bought it from her, it is thus a made lunch.

Secondly: "Is a fruit salad a combination of different varieties of fruits? Or could it be different varieties of ONE fruit. ie two types of mandarin chopped up together? Or even ripe and unripe bananas mixed together?"

I would suggest that a fruit salad, by definition, must consist of different varieties of fruits. A collection of pieces of the same type of fruit or derivatives of the same type of fruit put together is merely a whole bunch of cut up fruit! :) (Respectfully speaking of course).

Now...(let's get into the main chunk of this judgment)..

With regard to the "cheese sandwich" referred to by my most esteemed colleague Chung J, I respectfully disagree with her proposition that a cheese sandwich can not be considered "made" under my definition. A cheese sandwich has in fact been physically altered. The two slices of bread in a normal, 'typical' sandwich have been spread with margarine or butter, which alters the state of the bread as something has been adhered to its face. If the sandwich is sans butter/margarine, then the presence of the cheese between the two slices has changed the physical appearance of the bread. Before it was a few slices of bread in a bag..now it's 2 slices of bread with cheese between it.

Corn Thins
Now, I do not disagree on the point that Corn thins are "an excellent idea for lunch". This point is not in dispute. In fact I emphatically agreed on this point, as I myself have consumed corn thins for lunch, at Orientation Week actually (well, they were there...no sense in not utilising what's free and there!). Corn thins do constitute a lunch (when consumed in a substantial amount) however, three corn thins together do not constitute a "made lunch". This is because the Corn thins, although put together like the components of a cheese sandwich, actually exist in the same form as they did in the bag in which they came from. The Corn thins in the "corn thin sandwich" are even stacked in the same way in which they were stacked in the bag they came in. Therefore, three corn thins do not constitute a made lunch. It stands to reason that one corn thin does not either. How can a single corn thin constitute a made lunch even if supposedly three corn thins does? I feel that I have found a hole in my well-meaning but misdirected friend Chung J's argument. Chung J has agreed that a cheese sandwich constitutes a made lunch. If the same analogy that she has applied to the three corn thins is applied to the cheese sandwich then we produce a nonsensical conclusion. My learned friend Chung J suggests that "one cornthin can be recognised as a made lunch" because quality, not quantity is the measure. Are we also to suggest that one piece of bread is also a made lunch? How has the piece of bread (or piece of corn thin for that matter) been altered? It is simply a piece of bread. The consumer has had no part in altering the bread or adding anything to the bread to deem it "made" as lunch. It is simply a piece of bread. The piece of bread can constitute a lunch (a very meagre one at that), however it can not constitute a made lunch, or a bought lunch for that matter. It is simply a piece of bread being consumed for lunch.

"Make"
Again, I feel it necessary to define "make"; once this is done it becomes clear whether things, such as those which my legal colleague Chung J has suggested, constitute a "made" lunch. Now according to the groovy new net accessory that I have recently acquired called GuruNet, "made" in the context that we seek means:

1. To bring into existence by shaping, modifying, or putting together material
2. To prepare; fix: make breakfast.

I realise that the second definition may arouse assertions such as: a three-cornthin sandwich should constitute a made lunch because it is fixed and prepared - I just pick up three pieces of corn thins and whack them together, and voila! A made corn thin sandwich. However I beg to differ. What kind of preparation is that? The corn thins are merely taken out of the bag, then eaten. Actual preparation or "shaping, modifying, or putting together material" must occur for it to constitute a made lunch. This action should occur with the measure of the reasonable person. That is, the effort and labour that is required by a reasonable person to fix or prepare lunch is the standard. I do not wish to further dwell on semantics and definitions, such as that of the reasonable person (as I'm sure will be asked and argued against), but let me also state that in tort law, the standard of the reasonable person is the measure. And since my most noble and learned friend Chung J has decided that this issue is a tort of lunchmaking, I respectfully suggest that the standard of reasonable person therefore stands for itself.

And that, I hope, is that :)