Miscellaneous desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23

Why Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items?

Generally Shavers or trimmer blades comes under consumable items – I just wonder why these items are comes under consumable.

I got this reply from one of the shopkeeper in Mumbai – he was giving logic that we don’t know how many times you are using these blades / which condition you are using blades hence it comes under wear and tear.

But my question is same can be applicable for motor used in trimmer – I can use the motor long period but companies are giving warrantee for it.

Can anybody guide me on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chetan sk (talk • contribs) 12:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the blades are designed to be replaced quickly and easily, while leaving the rest of the product intact. They are disposable. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the blades can be replaced is only part of it. The motor is a sealed unit - it is either on or off, and it is therefore possible to test it and know how long it should work for without failing. That makes it possible to give a warranty for a certain period, knowing that if it fails before then there must have been something faulty. However, the blades can be used in different ways, and can be abused as well. How long blades last will depend on what type of hair is being cut, whether the blades get wet or greasy, whether they are cleaned properly, etc. They could also be damaged if used for the wrong purpose - I have known someone use a trimmer to try and remove the bobbling on a woollen garment. That makes it almost impossible to work out how long they should last - so no warranties. Wymspen (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How things are taxed and regulated is a political question. It has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the irrational whims of legislators and lobbyists. Consider, there is no tax on lemon cooking extract, which is "food", even though it is about 83% alcohol, while the majority of the cost of lemon liqueurs, with essentially the same ingredients (and perhaps 20% alcohol content), is based on punitive surcharges, so that the taxes exceed the retail price of the "adult beverage". μηδείς (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This question doesn't seem to have to do anything with tax. It may have to do with regulations but I'm not sure, this could easily be simply the company policies in India. In plenty of countries consumable items have limited warranties, while these are guides by the law often regulations don't even have definitions of consumable items let alone what is a consumable item in relation to warranties and consumer protections but instead broadly proscribe protections with a recognition that these protections don't apply to resonable wear and tear or damage to be expected by ordinary usage. Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know Indian consumer law, but the hint is "comes under" with the answer being "consumable", and not "hair care". Shop keepers rarely make arbitrary classifications like "consumable" unless they are required to do so for tax or regulatory purposes, which deep down amount to the same thing. Imagine going shopping, asking the clerk where the trimmer blades are, and being told, Aisle 15 Consumables. The OP can clarify if he hasn't yet gotten his answer. μηδείς (talk) 17:42, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there's no indication this has anything whatsoever to do with random classifications relating to tax or other regulations or locations in aisles. The OP has already strongly indicated that this has all to do with why shaver blades are considered/classed as consumables and therefore have very limited warranties i.e. a specific classification for a specific purpose. This has much more to do with the companies making the razor blades than the shopkeepers themselves and as I said, despite you scepticism is actually very common in the world with only very limited regulatory guidance. It's trivial to demonstrate it's fairly common that warranties do limit or excludes consumable in India e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] (not sure if it will work for others, it didn't work for me at the time although Google's cache did) so the OP is not wrong. It's very difficult to prove a negative like this, and given India's well known regulatory environment it's possible they do have a regulations somewhere that classifies razor blades as consumables for warranty or other purposes that also applies to warranties, but other than India's reputation, there's no specific reason to think it's the case as I already said, it isn't the case in plenty of jurisdictions, discounting a possible court case if it's ever challenged. Most likely such a challenge wouldn't arise anyway, as the examples show generally companies will specifically mention any likely examples which will apply to the specific warranty so razor blades will generally be specified, it's only when they forgot or it's something new or special or it's some sort of very wide warranty that it could arise. Many warranties likewise limit coverage for accessories, but again while there may be some limited regulatory guidance, there's often no specific regulations covering accessories or defining accessories. Rather the regulations allow meaningful limits on consumer guarantees which allow the companies to so limit their warranties and they've chosen to do so. (And actually plenty of times companies end up violate regulations orlaws with the warranty policies, they get around this by saying "nothing in this policy overides any protections under whatever consumer laws/regulations.) TL;DR, India is known for being a fairly extreme regulatory environment so I can't rule out their being some regulation somewhere that classifies razor blades as consumables for warranty related purposes but it's easy to say that in plenty of other countries there is no such thing, the closest you'll get would be a court case if anyone ever challenges a company because of such a classification. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP would do well to read the Consumables article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article, it's a definition, and should be exported to wiktionary. It certainly won't tell the OP more than has been said above, except mention that Locke used the term. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems unclear on what "consumables" means, so reading the article might help, be it here or in wiktionary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rutland, England

Rutland is a county in England, but does it have a WikiProject template, like Dorset does? See {{WikiProject Dorset|class=FA|importance=Top}}.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long list of WikiProjects at Wikipedia:Database reports/WikiProjects by changes though it isn't kept up to date. There is one for Dorset in the list, but not one for Rutland. Wymspen (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent history might be part of the problem: under the much-reviled Local Government Act 1972, Rutland was abolished as administrative county losing its county council and making it part of Leicestershire. The recommendations of the Local Government Commission for England (1992) saw it reconstituted in April 1997 and the Lieutenancies Act 1997 restored it as a ceremonial county in the same year. So now you see it, now you don't and there it is again!

It is (or was) famously the smallest rural county in England, so finding a native to take ownership of a project may be an issue. Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That led me to something I didn't know before - the county courts set up under the County Courts Act 1846 have been abolished - there is now one county court which covers the whole country. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A related question: The Mayor's Court and the City of London Court amalgamated to form the Mayor's and City of London Court, which had county court jurisdiction for the City of London. This court still exists apparently - does that mean that it was excluded from the reform, in the same way that the City of London (and more specifically its Court of Common Council) was excluded from the local government reform? 94.195.147.35 (talk) 09:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 2012 county court reforms: "It does not mean there will be one single physical building where all civil cases will be heard. We will continue to have county court hearing centres across the country which will correspond to the existing locations. What it does mean, however, is that jurisdictional barriers will be removed, which in the past have prevented some cases from being issued at, or moved to, the most suitable venues and, more importantly, prevented the best and most efficient use of judges’ time, as well as the other resources needed to hear cases at different levels". [12]

So the individual county courts have been amalgamated, but the trial centres and offices haven't. Thus the county courthouse and offices immediately north of the City are still the Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court. The Crown Court complex at Wood Green is properly referred to as Wood Green Crown Court. In documentation the old Exeter County Court, for example, is referred to as "The County Court sitting at Exeter". Every judgment by the County Court is sealed - have the old seals been replaced, and if they have, what do the new ones say? Parliamentarians complain that the court system which used to be administered by lawyers (i.e. the Lord Chancellor's Department, headed by the Lord Chancellor (who was a Law Lord)) isn't any more. It's run by politicians (the Ministry of Justice) and the Minister of Justice doubles as Lord Chancellor because the legislation which abolished this ancient office was unconstitutional. When what used to be the Mayor's and City of London Court issues a judgment what name is used? 94.195.147.35 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]