Returning unsatisfactory PC to AO.com

DoaM

As expected, fred refuses to answer a direct question. 🙄

shaun_from_Africa

MalMonroe said:

No they wouldn't have been limited at all. It's not a gesture of goodwill. It's the law. The item didn't work properly and when that happens consumers are entitled to a full refund. As per the Consumer Rights Act, 2015.

Would that be the same law that states that if the consumer rejects the goods within the first 30 days and request a full refund, the onus is on them to prove that the fault exists and that it existed at the time they took possession of those goods?
If it is, then surely a retailer providing a full refund without asking for the proof that they are entitled to is showing goodwill by refunding before they are legally required to do so.

fred246

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

neilmcl

fred246 said:

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

Pleas stop posting, what you're coming out with is getting ridiculous now. The "law" seemed pretty clear to you earlier and now it's not so much 🤣

Spank

fred246 said:

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

I guess this is the nearest we will get to you acknowledging that your wrong, although "Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it." is borderline gibberish

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

fred246 said:

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

I'm not one to advocate high deductions for simply opening the box and switching something on, you could also argue a shop may have a display model (although AO don't have shops and the likes of Currys don't have display models for everything and wouldn't open a new box just for you try it out on the off chance you'll actually buy it) but something fresh out the factory box is completely pristine, things like finger prints and fine scratches are very easy to occur and whilst they may be minimal the next shopper wouldn't be happy to receive in that condition (despite the pointlessness of this desire to have new things pristine as a new one in someone else's hands would still show these slight signs of use after 5 minutes but there you go). 

If you slice any tape open with a stanley knife you'd be able to reseal the packing no problem and if you didn't mention you'd used it the retailer might never know if they didn't see any signs of use.

You are correct that big retailers do their best to persuade buyers away from their rights but if there is any diminished value from handling beyond what might be allowed in a shop then a deduction can be made. 

photome

fred246 said:

Wow a person who works in customer service. I am sure they know everything about the law. Can't believe you get experts like that posting on this forum.

you spout rubbish on the motoring forum and now doing it here. 
very rarely do I report a post but have reported yours, altho admin will prob give me a slap on the wrist instead

DoaM

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

fred246 said:

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

I posted that reference on page 6 ... after all I'd asked fred to prove his point so only felt it fair that I prove mine. He is still taking the slopey shoulders approach, spouting nonsense then refusing to back it up.

powerful_Rogue

fred246 said:

I think what is clear is that the law is unclear. PCs are not excluded from distance selling laws. In this case the PC was packed up almost immediately for return. So a full refund should be provided. It sounds like the retailers are making a big deal out of wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows. Physically it's very easy to do. Not sure of legal issues with Microsoft. Manufacturers could sell with Linux installed instead. Microsoft wouldn't be happy with that because people may actually prefer it to Windows once they have used it.

Why should the retailer have to wipe the harddrive and re-install windows at thier own expense?

I think the OP has done very well to get a full refund. Fair play to AO for showing some goodwill. Personally, I would have deducted 20%.

Manxman_in_exile

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/34/made

(9) If (in the case of a sales contract) the value of the goods is diminished by any amount as a result of handling of the goods by the consumer beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods, the trader may recover that amount from the consumer, up to the contract price.

(12) For the purposes of paragraph (9) handling is beyond what is necessary to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the goods if, in particular, it goes beyond the sort of handling that might reasonably be allowed in a shop.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here (although I am also interested to read what people do think) why would Parliament decide to legislate using the word "handling" rather than, say, "use"?

It's often struck me that "handling" seems to be suited more to commodities and goods where the "physical" quality or qualities  of the thing in question are more important than, say, how they process data.

I'm wondering how far I could "use" a computer (eg installing and perhaps testing some software) without actually physically "handling" it more than I could in a shop?  Presumably I could do that within a few minutes with just a few keystrokes.  Would that be more "handling" than might reasonably be allowed in a shop?  (I'm not arguing that the shop would allow me to install the software - just that the "handling" required to do so could, of itself, be reasonable).

It's always struck me that "handling" rather than "use" is a very specific word and seems an odd choice in this legislative context.

EDIT:  Or "test"..."testing"... or "tested"...  but not "handling"?