Know your consumer rights!

[sjm]

Deliberately ruining a product is not the same thing as opening packaging to check whether the goods are fit for their intended use.

Intended use as clearly stated on the packaging was console use. OP was taking a chance that they'd work on a PC. If they'd failed on a console, he'd 100% have a case. They failed on a PC, which was a use case that was not specified AT ALL on the packaging.

If I buy Oros hoping to use it as brake fluid, I don't have a claim against the retailer if I later discover that Oros does not work as brake fluid.

 

[OGroteKoning]

Intended use as clearly stated on the packaging was console use. OP was taking a chance that they'd work on a PC. If they'd failed on a console, he'd 100% have a case. They failed on a PC, which was a use case that was not specified AT ALL on the packaging.

If I buy Oros hoping to use it as brake fluid, I don't have a claim against the retailer if I later discover that Oros does not work as brake fluid.

So what happens if he asked the salesman if it can be used on PC and he said "I am not sure", the product is purchased just to find out that it does not work on a PC. He still has no proof that the salesman said he should give it a shot and I think it is wrong for a consumer to know everything about the products he/she is interested in. That is what the salesman is for.

 

[MickeyD]

So what happens if he asked the salesman if it can be used on PC and he said "I am not sure", the product is purchased just to find out that it does not work on a PC. He still has no proof that the salesman said he should give it a shot and I think it is wrong for a consumer to know everything about the products he/she is interested in. That is what the salesman is for.

In that case he should have requested the salesman to open it before he purchased it to confirm that it could be used on a PC as well.

 

[Greig Whitton]

Intended use as clearly stated on the packaging was console use. OP was taking a chance that they'd work on a PC. If they'd failed on a console, he'd 100% have a case. They failed on a PC, which was a use case that was not specified AT ALL on the packaging.

Per my original post, OP would only have a case (in terms of a strict interpretation of the CPA) if he communicated his intended use (i.e. PC use) at the time of purchase.

If I buy Oros hoping to use it as brake fluid, I don't have a claim against the retailer if I later discover that Oros does not work as brake fluid.

But if you communicated your intended use at the time of purchase, then you would (assuming all other conditions detailed in my original post were satisfied).

 

[CataclysmZA]

In that case he should have requested the salesman to open it before he purchased it to confirm that it could be used on a PC as well.

Eh, they would have refused that anyway since it was blister packaging.

I'm not fazed by it now. I have a buyer for the headphones to get my money back and we'll find something more suitable. I'm usually good with this stuff, but the purchase on the floor without prior research was a bad decision and opening it just made everything much more difficult.

I'll be more careful next time because I know now that Company A's policy is not to help people in the same position unless the product can be repacked without ruining the packaging.

I also rigged up a Xbox 360 controller to the PC and it works well enough, but the audio and mic quality isn't fantastic because this isn't a proper Xbox 360 setup. I'd rather stick to me trusty Siberias than use that method.