takeover vs. handover

09:39 Jun 9, 2014 

PAS, you are the last, non-native Hope for me. Deeply appreciated :))

09:04 Jun 9, 2014 

Yes, Tony, qute correct. Hitting on somebody is not the same as hitting them over the head ;-)

09:02 Jun 9, 2014 

What is also very important in EN phrasal verbs is the specific 'preposition' used — so 'to take on' and 'to take over' are totally different in meaning; and even 'to take on' itself can have different meanings according to context, like 'to take someone on for the summer period' = to hire them, or 'to take on an almost impossible task' = to assume responsibility for.

08:58 Jun 9, 2014 

In my work, my English colleagues (so, a "native" invention) coined the phrase "take on for use".
What this meant, in a very specific situation, was that the contractor received some equipment to operate and maintain, but the equipment remained the property of the employer.
The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes there will be specific contractual situations which cannot be described using a particular commonly recognized word or term.

08:07 Jun 9, 2014 

Hi all, I have the reasons to believe that this question originated from my question in PL-EN pair. In my text the author of the text of the contract (the contracting authority = the purchaser) formed the polish term of "handover" to mean literally "takeover to operation" - which in my understanding was to mean that the purchaser takes the equipment from the contractor and puts it to operation, but the author wanted to integrate this two actions/terms into one. This event was closely related to the final acceptance of the equipment, but it was not at the same time (some protocols and documentation changed hands between these two events). Your opinions/answers helped me to understand that english can reflect almost everything that one is able to express in polish, except for the special "linguistic inventions" of the author, in which case the translator should avoid being too literal and translate the meaning*. [*] = which is also a good principle to follow in all TR work. THANK YOU!

10:37 Jun 6, 2014 

for your answers and attempts to understand my awkwardly worded context!
All answers perfectly capture this my context, thus I would like to thank again:
Gallagy - for the brilliant explanation and patience to convince me so carefully.
Tony M - for his so useful answer, and who has perfectly guessed what I have been talking about.
My special thanks go to Armorel who has disappeared, but who has friendly explained my awkwardness so that I catched immediately (forget-me-nots for you! :).
I would also like to thank very much PAS who bravely struggles for a hope... I could have taken over, accordingly :).
Finally - would like to thank all for your time to support/comment the answers!

09:24 Jun 6, 2014 

Like I said - I was thinking (probably unwittingly) in line with FIDIC, which specifically uses the term takeover in the sense that I have written.

09:04 Jun 6, 2014 

I have accepted a great many handovers, of housing developments rather than machines, and no it is not correct to say "If you accept a handover, you simply acknowledge that work was performed correctly." On accepting handover, I was taking possession of the site on behalf of my employer. From the moment I signed for handover, we were responsible for insurance, security, taxes, safety etc. and had the right to sell or let the premises.

07:55 Jun 6, 2014 

I understand this, and I understand the (American) meaning of "takeover/ take over".
However, I see a difference between "accepting a handover" and "taking over the responsibility and ownership" by the Employer - this is based on FIDIC terminology and this is where I was coming from.
If you accept a handover, you simply acknowledge that work was performed correctly.
Taking over something is a transfer of responsibility, ownership etc. from Contractor to Employer.
At that point, the Contractor ceases to be responsible for whatever he did and the product becomes an asset of the Employer.

21:53 Jun 5, 2014 

In your example, the purchaser takes over (acceptable, though not the ideal way of putting it) various roles and responsibilities, but it is still not right to say they "take over" the machine. They accept handover of the machine.

19:00 Jun 5, 2014 

PAS,
In a nutshell... thank you very much! :)

15:00 Jun 5, 2014 

...who the "contracting party" and "purchaser" are.

One solution:
Contractor supplies, installs and operates the machine then hands it over to the purchaser (employer?).
At the same time, the purchaser/ employer takes over (ownership, responsibility, operation) of the machine.