HP says I should have known its £399 laptop bargain was too good to be true

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

HP is under fire for cancelling a heavily discounted laptop order in the UK, recalling the device mid-delivery and offering only a refund plus a 20% voucher, despite having confirmed the purchase. Commenters debate whether such pricing errors should be legally binding contracts, comparing consumer protection regimes in the UK, US, EU, Australia, Canada, and Russia, and noting tactics like inflated “regular prices” and channel-specific SKUs. Many see the episode as emblematic of HP’s broader decline in ethics and customer experience, contrasting it with the company’s historically strong reputation.

Perceived issue with HP’s “too good to be true” defense

  • Many argue a £399 discounted laptop is plausible, given frequent 50–75% “sale” claims in electronics.
  • Commenters see hypocrisy: manufacturers routinely market confusing, inflated “original prices,” yet blame consumers for not spotting a mistake.

Consumer law and contract formation

  • Several posts claim that in the UK a binding contract existed once HP confirmed the order and took payment.
  • Others note contracts or site “terms of use” often include pricing-error escape clauses.
  • Comparisons:
    • Australia, Canada, Russia: multiple commenters say such prices would usually have to be honored.
    • Germany: law recognizes “declaration error”; seller can void a contract formed on a clear pricing mistake but must refund. Some think this price might not be “obviously” erroneous.
    • US: doctrine of “unilateral mistake of fact” may let retailers void contracts if the buyer should have realized the error.

Small claims and realistic recourse

  • UK small claims court exists, with capped fees, no legal costs, and up to £10k claims.
  • Some think the buyer would likely win there; others note the hassle and asymmetry versus a large company.

Pricing games and artificial discounts

  • Discussion of laws in various countries requiring “sale” prices to be based on genuine prior prices.
  • Retail tactics discussed: channel-specific SKUs, or nearly identical products with different SKUs to manufacture fake discounts.
  • Concern that weak enforcement (e.g., in the US) allows pervasive “75% off” style marketing.

Package recalls and “refused delivery”

  • Several note that shippers (UPS, Royal Mail, Amazon’s carriers, etc.) often allow senders, and sometimes buyers, to reroute or recall packages.
  • Some see this as open to abuse, e.g., marking “refused delivery” or “not present” to game metrics or unwind an unwanted sale.

Who owns goods in transit?

  • Debate over whether it’s better for the seller or buyer to bear risk while a parcel is with the courier.
  • One view: seller ownership until delivery is preferable so customers aren’t chasing couriers or proving non-delivery.
  • Others find it troubling that a company can unilaterally rescind after taking payment.

Views on HP’s reputation and behavior

  • Many describe HP as having declined from a once highly trusted engineering brand to a “shitty” consumer company.
  • Past grievances include printers/scanners with artificial restrictions and warranty refusals on discounted hardware.
  • Several say they’d boycott HP regardless of legal outcome; a 20% voucher is widely seen as insulting.

Comparisons to other marketing disputes

  • The case is likened to famously contentious promotions (e.g., the “Harrier jet for points” case), with disagreement over what counts as “obviously a joke” versus a binding offer.