<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:36:09 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-

known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had made
a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to return it
to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the manufacturer
claiming that the customer ought to have known the price was an error
the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I'm guessing this is an(other) example of a company wanting it both ways.
They give their pricing over to some form of automation, and when it goes wrong, blame the customer.

The "legal" question here, is how much the automation process can be
expected - if at all - to counter the excuse "the customer should have
known" that an algorithm was allegedly on the Fritz. ?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23 Nov 2023 at 19:48:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:36:09 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had made
a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to return it
to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the manufacturer
claiming that the customer ought to have known the price was an error
the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded along with a
voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I'm guessing this is an(other) example of a company wanting it both ways. They give their pricing over to some form of automation, and when it goes wrong, blame the customer.

The "legal" question here, is how much the automation process can be
expected - if at all - to counter the excuse "the customer should have
known" that an algorithm was allegedly on the Fritz. ?

In principle is it not whether the discount is reasonably likely that matters?
At least if it ever got to court. I am fairly sure that had they sold the laptops for £800 they would have had more difficulty backing out.

--
Roger Hayter

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:36:09 +0000, Nick Odell <nickodell49@yahoo.ca> wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the >manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

The fact that the advertised price was exactly one digit away from the
intended price does support the idea that it was a genuine error. And I
think the price diffference is too great to be reasonably assumed to be offloading unwanted stock.

In any case, manufacturers rarely discount that deeply themselves on direct sales, not least because they don't want to undermine the perception of
value on the rest of the products and ebcause they don't want to undercut
their own retailers. If they do want to shift unwanted stock, they hand it
off to the likes of Ebuyer to flog it off cheap.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I think the decision not to sue was the right one in this case.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/11/2023 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 23 Nov 2023 at 19:48:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:36:09 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had made >>> a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to return it
to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the manufacturer
claiming that the customer ought to have known the price was an error
the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded along with a
voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I'm guessing this is an(other) example of a company wanting it both ways.
They give their pricing over to some form of automation, and when it goes
wrong, blame the customer.

The "legal" question here, is how much the automation process can be
expected - if at all - to counter the excuse "the customer should have
known" that an algorithm was allegedly on the Fritz. ?

In principle is it not whether the discount is reasonably likely that matters?
At least if it ever got to court. I am fairly sure that had they sold the laptops for £800 they would have had more difficulty backing out.

Isn't the devil in the detail? What did HP's T&C actually say? The
Guardian stated:
"HP’s terms and conditions state that the contract is formed once the
order confirmation is sent. The retailer can only back out of the deal
if it can show that you deliberately took advantage of a mistake."

I'd have assumed that once HP had take the purchaser's money (by credit
card?) and dispatched the goods, then they were owned by the purchaser
(unless, of course, the T&C said differently). That final sentence about
taking advantage of a mistake seems nonsense to me. Isn't /any/ offer at
less than the usual price meant to act as an inducement to buy, so they
could hardly blame the purchaser for going along with their inducement?

Out of interest, if the contract to sell had been completed once the
money was taken and the goods despatched, in the absence of any limiting contractual factors aren't the goods then owned by the purchaser? If
that is the case, is there any offence which has taken place under the
Theft Act, or is the required definition of theft not met?

--

Jeff

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 16:36:20 UTC, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

But what was this particular item on sale for elsewhere? If it was e.g. on
at £499 somewhere else then fair enough, but if every other outlet had
it around £1399 then it seems a clearer error.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 24/11/2023 08:31, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 23/11/2023 20:17, Roger Hayter wrote:

On 23 Nov 2023 at 19:48:43 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 16:36:09 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made
a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to return it >>>> to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the manufacturer
claiming that the customer ought to have known the price was an error
the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded along with a >>>> voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO >>>> that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I'm guessing this is an(other) example of a company wanting it both
ways.
They give their pricing over to some form of automation, and when it
goes
wrong, blame the customer.

The "legal" question here, is how much the automation process can be
expected - if at all - to counter the excuse "the customer should have
known" that an algorithm was allegedly on the Fritz. ?

In principle is it not whether the discount is reasonably likely that
matters?
  At least if it ever got to court. I am fairly sure that had they
sold the
laptops for £800 they would have had more difficulty backing out.

Isn't the devil in the detail? What did HP's T&C actually say? The
Guardian stated:
"HP’s terms and conditions state that the contract is formed once the
order confirmation is sent. The retailer can only back out of the deal
if it can show that you deliberately took advantage of a mistake."

I'd have assumed that once HP had take the purchaser's money (by credit card?) and dispatched the goods, then they were owned by the purchaser (unless, of course, the T&C said differently). That final sentence about taking advantage of a mistake seems nonsense to me. Isn't /any/ offer at
less than the usual price meant to act as an inducement to buy, so they
could hardly blame the purchaser for going along with their inducement?

Out of interest, if the contract to sell had been completed once the
money was taken and the goods despatched, in the absence of any limiting contractual factors aren't the goods then owned by the purchaser? If
that is the case, is there any offence which has taken place under the
Theft Act, or is the required definition of theft not met?

It is a long time since I had to worry about such things, but ISTR that ownership of goods did not pass to the buyer until they had been
delivered, rather than simply dispatched. Hence, the sender can recall
them, via the delivery company, at any time until they actually reach
the buyer. An exception to this is goods sent by post, which are
considered to have been delivered as soon as they have been posted.

--
Colin Bignell

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:17:04 -0800, David McNeish wrote:

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 16:36:20 UTC, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have- known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

But what was this particular item on sale for elsewhere? If it was e.g.
on at £499 somewhere else then fair enough, but if every other outlet
had it around £1399 then it seems a clearer error.

Ultimately this situation places the consumer in a position where they
have to "guess" that the offer is genuine and not a mistake.

Whether that is equitable or lawful is another matter.

Certainly in physical sales, we are told the price displayed is an
"invitation to treat" and can be amended before sale.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:17:04 -0800 (PST), David McNeish
<davidmcn@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 16:36:20 UTC, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

But what was this particular item on sale for elsewhere? If it was e.g. on
at £499 somewhere else then fair enough, but if every other outlet had
it around £1399 then it seems a clearer error.

I think Mark's point (above) is a good one - that a manufacturer might
not want to be seen jobbing stuff out and will pass it over to
discount outlet to do the dirty work - but I'm not really convinced
that a drop from £1399 to £399 isn't realistic. Take a look at some of
today's Black Friday deals: are the ones priced at one third to one
quarter of the former price all mistakes?

In the days when I made things it was usual to sell on a cost-plus
basis but nowadays things are commonly sold for what the market will
bear and seldom represent the actual cost of manufacture, distribution
etc. Is an iPhone15 at £1200 really thirty times more expensive to
make than a supermarket no-name smartphone that sells for £39? I
suspect that even sold at £399, that computer would have recovered
more than its actual cost (although fancy interdepartmental accounting practices might not indicate so) and that £1399 was merely the price
point they had chosen to pitch normal sales at.

Recently I was reading about the infamous Hoover Free Flights to New
York debacle with all the repercussions from that debacle - and
although not directly related, the more I think about this particular
case involving computers, the more I think this seller ought to have
had their feet held closer to the fire.

Nick

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/11/2023 21:21, Mark Goodge wrote:

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

I think the decision not to sue was the right one in this case.

I wondered, as I think the OP did, whether the argument about the
obvious misprice was a bit of a red herring. HP's thinking may have been
as simple as 'most people don't sue, even if they have a good case, so
we will deal with that if it happens'.

Mark

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2023-11-24, Jethro_uk wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 01:17:04 -0800, David McNeish wrote:

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 16:36:20 UTC, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-

known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the
manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

But what was this particular item on sale for elsewhere? If it was e.g.
on at £499 somewhere else then fair enough, but if every other outlet
had it around £1399 then it seems a clearer error.

Ultimately this situation places the consumer in a position where they
have to "guess" that the offer is genuine and not a mistake.

The consumer's letter opens with "HP kept emailing me special offers
so I checked its website." Should that have some bearing on it?

If you went out deliberately looking for pricing errors to take
advantage of, that might be a different matter.

Whether that is equitable or lawful is another matter.

Certainly in physical sales, we are told the price displayed is an "invitation to treat" and can be amended before sale.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:02:25 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

Ultimately this situation places the consumer in a position where they
have to "guess" that the offer is genuine and not a mistake.

The consumer's letter opens with "HP kept emailing me special offers
so I checked its website." Should that have some bearing on it?

If you went out deliberately looking for pricing errors to take
advantage of, that might be a different matter.

The article doesn't say that the 'buyer' knew the price was wrong, or
thought it must be wrong, but that they thought the laptop was a good
buy.
Are buyers expected to carry out due diligence on prices before they
press the buy button?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 15:45:22 +0000, Peter Johnson wrote:

On Fri, 24 Nov 2023 11:02:25 +0000, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com>
wrote:

Ultimately this situation places the consumer in a position where they
have to "guess" that the offer is genuine and not a mistake.

The consumer's letter opens with "HP kept emailing me special offers so
I checked its website." Should that have some bearing on it?

If you went out deliberately looking for pricing errors to take
advantage of, that might be a different matter.

The article doesn't say that the 'buyer' knew the price was wrong, or
thought it must be wrong, but that they thought the laptop was a good
buy.
Are buyers expected to carry out due diligence on prices before they
press the buy button?

It seems that's what the suppliers argument is.

All of this hinges on "reasonable" - as in what would a "reasonable
person" believe.

I can easily believe that a £1399 laptop could be discounted to £399.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 23 November 2023 at 16:36:20 UTC, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

Nick

If there is a genuine mistake (e.g. putting the decimal point in the wrong place) then the party making it can back out.

OTOH if one party has got cold feet about a deal (e.g. a bid at an auction) then the other party has cause for action for specific performance or damages.

Although HP's prices fluctuate wildly on both their own web site and resellers (e.g. PC World) and getting the lap top you want for the price advertised recently can be difficult, in this case the difference is so large that any reasonable person would
have noticed. OTOH find one half way between the two then you might have a case for the difference.

Kodak got hung up on this some years ago offering cameras at a price between a third and a half of usual. Initially they refused to fulfil any orders, particularly multiples from resellers, but eventually conceded that retail customers who had ordered a
single camera, maybe another as a gift, would get their goods.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 23/11/2023 16:36, Nick Odell wrote:

<https://www.theguardian.com/money/2023/nov/23/hp-says-i-should-have-known-its-399-laptop-bargain-was-too-good-to-be-true>

Long story short, a £1399 laptop was offered for several days on the manufacturer's website at a special offer price of £399 and customer
bought one. The manufacturer decided - mid-delivery - that they had
made a mistake in the pricing and ordered the delivery company to
return it to sender. After a lot of huffing and puffing and the
manufacturer claiming that the customer ought to have known the price
was an error the price they paid was grudgingly and belatedly refunded
along with a voucher.

I would not have taken that sort of price drop as an error because IMO
that places the new price firmly in the range of the prices companies
charge to off-load unwanted stock. See ebuyer.com or a host of others
for examples.

Shouldn't the frustrated buyer have been advised to sue for loss of
bargain or is that route a no-hoper these days?

Nick

£1000 off of £1400. Very generous - but a mistake?

Who would apply a 71% reduction?

and are they reputable?

How about Richer Sounds, say?

Front page of Richer Sounds website....

https://www.richersounds.com/

Fyne Audio - £500 off of £699

Yes - 71%

and 'incredible' suggests that they know what they are doing.

Other sites eg eBay have similar offers, So the OP could argue
(successfully I think) that he did not believe that his laptop price was
a mistake.

Flop

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)