Returning unsatisfactory PC to AO.com

DoaM

If only there was an Unthanks button available, eh?  

neilmcl

DoaM said:

I call troll ... classic signs in the way fred is picking and choosing how he responds.

You should report him as such. His actions on here are unhelpful to say the least.

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM said:

Let's give an example ... you buy a hammer online and it arrives in a box. You open the box, pick it up, swing it about to get a feel for the weight etc. You have handled the goods. If you then decide to hammer a nail into a piece of wood, you have used the goods.

Opening the PC, putting it on the desk, trying out the keyboard for its feel ... that's all handling. Turning it on and going through the setup (especially if you use an online login account, e.g. Hotmail, Outlook) ... that's using.

That's how I differentiate the two, so I disagree that my definition supports your point.

What I do agree with is that it's open to interpretation. Until and unless it's tested in a court whose judgments are binding (court of appeal as a minimum) then it'll never be clarified.

But I think your example of the hammer demonstrates my point perfectly.  You have described what I would agree is "handling" the goods.  (eg opening the box, picking it up in your hands, examining it at arms' length, turning it around in your hands, looking at it more closely, running your hands over the surface, feeling the texture, holding it up to the light etc etc).  That is clearly "handling" as opposed to "using", which I don't think is encompassed within the meaning of "handling", "handled" etc.

So at what point does "handling" a purchased item at home become more than you could reasonably expect to do in a shop?  It seems obvious to me that it is not the extent of the "handling" that may reduce an items resale value, but the fact that you've "used" it in some way.  After all, you buy a "used" car, not a "handled" one - unless it's been stolen of course 

I'm just curious that wherever this idea - let's call it reducing the amount of a refund to reflect that a returned item has been "used" - originated, it was decided to use the rather anachronistic and unnatural word "handled" rather than "used".  I don't see that "handled" as opposed to "used" or "tested" clarifies what was intended.  (And unlike tax law I don't see that anyone has a vested interest in drafting unclear legislation!)

DoaM

I gave my interpretation of the difference between handled and used in respect of a PC ... I think my hammer analogy fits exactly ... so I disagree with your interpretation.

But as I said, like you I am merely a lay person giving an interpretation, so I cannot answer your fundamental question - ultimately only a binding court judgment can.

fred246

I haven't bought a ready made PC for years but they are normally delivered with Windows and bloatware I believe. So the hard drive will have a standard footprint of 0 and 1s. Once the computer is turned on they will change. So a manufacturer will be able to tell if the PC has ever been turned on. So if a retailer is going to charge £200 for a PC which is used they should be able to put a warning on the PC. "Look at me for free, plugging me in may lose you £200." Even if I wiped the hard drive and reinstalled Windows they would say "there is no bloatware, you have used the PC. £200 please." Surely the law should specify whether plugging an electrical item means it is now "used". If you inspected it in a shop it would be turned on.

KeithP

fred246 said:

If you inspected it in a shop it would be turned on.

Is that what happens in Argos?

Manxman_in_exile

KeithP said:

fred246 said:

If you inspected it in a shop it would be turned on.

Is that what happens in Argos?

Why is what happens (or doesn't happen) in Argos relevant?  The legislation - as quoted earlier in this thread - seems to refer to handling that would be reasonably allowed "in a shop".  So if you buy a PC online from Argos, it's not what handling would be allowed in a physical branch of Argos that is relevant, it's what would be reasonably allowed " in a shop".  Parliament could easily have drafted it so that the "in a shop" bit was intended to mean an actual physical branch of the related online retailer, or they could have worded it as "in the shop", but they chose not to.  It means any shop.

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM said:

I gave my interpretation of the difference between handled and used in respect of a PC ... I think my hammer analogy fits exactly ... so I disagree with your interpretation.

But as I said, like you I am merely a lay person giving an interpretation, so I cannot answer your fundamental question - ultimately only a binding court judgment can.

We can agree to disagree.

What I hope we would agree on is that when most people are referring to an item that is not pristine and not brand new having a lower value than one that is pristine and brand new, the main reason for that reduction in value is because it has been "used" and not because it has been "handled more than would reasonably be allowed in a shop".  And on those threads here where people are wanting a refund for an inherent fault that has only manifested itself after two years or whatever, it's always pointed out that the retailer can reduce any refund to reflect the two years of "use" they've had out of it, not because they've "handled" it more than they could in a shop.

I've always been quite interested in the wording used in statutes and it's always struck me that the choice of the verb "to handle" rather than the more obvious and natural (to me at least) "to use" is a very odd choice and not one that readily lends itself to being easily understood.

Manxman_in_exile

fred246 said:

... Surely the law should specify whether plugging an electrical item means it is now "used". If you inspected it in a shop it would be turned on.

And apart from being turned on, in a shop you might possibly try it out with some software that wouldn't neccessarily be pre-installed on it if you bought it?

(Oh God!  Am I beginning to agree with you?  This can't be happening!!!)

Spank

Fred. Would you be happy to pay the full price of a PC that has been taken out of the packaging, switched on, set up with the user's email and possibly had software installed, then returned?