Returning unsatisfactory PC to AO.com

DoaM

It harks back to prior legislation where there was a consideration of having accepted the goods. Opening the box, not being satisfied and then returning would not constitute acceptance; turning it on, logging in (i.e. setting it up) would be using the goods and thus acceptance. In the later legislation the acceptance consideration was removed, and I believe the term handling was introduced to bridge the gap and address the first use-case. (IMHO / IANAL etc.)

neilmcl

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

I don't agree, I would say the term "handling" is more wider meaning than the word "use", for example you can handle an item without necessarily using it and certainly enough to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning.

Manxman_in_exile

neilmcl said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

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.

I don't agree, I would say the term "handling" is more wider meaning than the word "use", for example you can handle an item without necessarily using it and certainly enough to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning.

I'm not sure you can "handle" a computer sufficiently to establish its nature, characteristics and functioning without in some way using or testing it.

Admittedly I come from a generation when we were taught to look at the words of a statute to determine what the law makers intended.  "Handling" strikes me as a strange deliberate choice of word and I'm really not sure what is meant.

NB - I edited my earlier post to add something before realising you and DoaM had already replied

EDIT:  Sorry I'm editing again!  It's not clear to me that "handled" does include "used" or "tested" if that is what you are suggesting.

Manxman_in_exile

DoaM said:

It harks back to prior legislation where there was a consideration of having accepted the goods. Opening the box, not being satisfied and then returning would not constitute acceptance; turning it on, logging in (i.e. setting it up) would be using the goods and thus acceptance. In the later legislation the acceptance consideration was removed, and I believe the term handling was introduced to bridge the gap and address the first use-case. (IMHO / IANAL etc.)

I'm probably at very real risk of confusing myself, but... your post sort of makes my point(?).

You've naturally used the word "using" rather than the word "handling" (or "handled").  What does "handling" (etc etc) mean in this context?  To me it is a very specific and rather unusual word, and, unlike neilmcl, I'm not sure that it does have a wider meaning than "used" does in this stautory context  I suppose I'm curious to know what was in the mind of the legislators (or perhaps rather the Parliamentary draftsman) when it was decided to use the word "handled" rather than the more natural (to me at least) "used".  Or indeed "handled or used or otherwise tested".

[Having said all that, Parliament probably passes five times as much legislation as it did when I was a law student, so it's perhaps not surprising if it's less than watertight and clear.]

DoaM

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.

fred246

The difference may be that I find wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows so simple I couldn't believe anyone could charge for it.

powerful_Rogue

fred246 said:

The difference may be that I find wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows so simple I couldn't believe anyone could charge for it.

Time is money Fred, do try and  keep up fella.

Spank

fred246 said:

The difference may be that I find wiping a hard drive and reinstalling Windows.

You're absolutely right, but if you were running a business you wouldn't be around long if you didn't charge for things that were quick.

DoaM

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

Spank

DoaM said:

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

You think?!!!!