Examination of a complete set of a laptop?

Question

laptops

I bought a laptop in ... one of the well-known stores. Asus VX6 laptop with ION2 stuffing. I immediately decided to check the performance of this feature under Linux (I had no doubts about its performance at that time, because I read the network to the holes), and when installing the system, I demolished the hidden partition (recovery partition) on the hard drive. Actually, the feature did not work (and it works very poorly under Linux), plus there was a stuck button, and I decided to refuse the purchase. At the time of applying to the store, two days (weekends) had passed since the purchase.
Was refused due to the fact that "the operating system is part of the laptop." At the same time, there is not a word about the packaging in the sales receipt and cash receipt (there is a name in which “Windows 7” is written), and in the accompanying documents for the laptop too. Therefore, there is no evidence base for this assertion, sort of. In the warranty requirements about the OS, there is not a word at all. A sticker with a key is present on the bottom of the laptop.
To be honest, at the time of installing the system, I was sure that the demolition of the partition would not cause any problems - no one warned me about this, there is no such information in the documents. Actually, the question is to prove the fact that the hidden partition on the hard drive is not part of the package. Some strange kind of examination, to be honest, like an examination of documents.
In the meantime, in the store they mentioned to me that the restoration of the hard drive in the Asus SC (and this requirement comes from them) costs as much as 2500 rubles. I wrote a claim (asked to replace it with a laptop twice as expensive), the store must provide me with evidence that this section is part of the package (some kind of nonsense).
Now the question is: who is to blame and what to do?

Answer 1

You put yourself in the place of the seller. Someone after you should buy this laptop. Even if you have kept a completely perfect appearance, the seller must restore the laptop to its original state. By law, you must return the product in the form in which you received it, and of course, the presence of a recovery partition is a necessary condition - it was there when you took it. Therefore, as you are not sad to hear this, the seller in this case is right. If you don't like the restoration price, you can check it yourself at the manufacturer's service center. In the same place, you can be provided with confirmation that the presence of a section is a prerequisite for a return. So I don't see any reason why you shouldn't pay for your experiments.
PS You reminded me of one client who brought a cartridge from a printer and demanded to replace it with a new one, because the printer did not print with the old one. And demanded to replace it for free. When we tried to explain to him that this was a consumable, he asked for proof, which confused us.

Answer 2

I read somewhere in some detail about how to act, one of the links is here: The story of how I returned a broken laptop to the store, I’ll try to find the second one now ...

Answer 3

There was also something similar , but, however, from a neighboring country (as I understand it).

Answer 4

“plus there was a falling button” - digressing from the topic of the section - this item is quite a reason for returning to the store, in which the store is obliged to take back the defective product.
you can also try to put the pre-installed Windows under the imposed service, especially since you paid for it upon purchase (i.e. the price of the laptop consists of the cost of the device itself + Windows), alas, I won’t tell you the specifics, but I think you should work in this direction.

Answer 5

Isn't it easier to just put Win7 back?

Answer 6

There is an official refusal, it just says that the hidden section is part of the package.
According to paragraph 2 of Article 12 of the POZPP:
“The seller (executor) who has not provided the buyer with complete and reliable information about the product (work, service) shall be liable under paragraphs 1-4 of Article 18 or paragraph 1 of Article 29 of this Law for defects in the goods ( works, services) arising after its transfer to the consumer due to the lack of such information.
That is, the fact that I was not warned about the impossibility of returning the goods if the hidden section was removed is the seller's problem. And he should restore this section.
Or am I wrong somewhere?