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

Re:HP says I should have known its £399 laptop bargain was t... by poizan42 on Sunday November 26, 2023 @03:06PM (#38424514)

I don't think the issue at hand here is the letter of the law, but rather when a bargain is "too good to be true" which is up for interpretation.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:HP says I should have known its £399 laptop bargain was t... by rjwilmsi on Sunday November 26, 2023 @03:48PM (#38424901)

Agree. It's about whether a buyer would reasonably expect the price to be correct.

UK law for consumer goods and sales, I would say generally doesn't require the buyer to be an expert. Laptops are items that are frequently included in sales and clearance sales at 50% off or more do happen. £400 is still a normal price to pay for a laptop. So I'd say the buyer could reasonably expect a laptop discounted to £400 to be the correct price, therefore HP were unreasonable to try to blame the buyer.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:HP says I should have known its £399 laptop bargain was t... by londons_explore on Sunday November 26, 2023 @03:12PM (#38424565)

Even if it was too good to be true, I suspect that the sending of a confirmation by the company makes it a valid contract. Law famously doesn't take into account the proportionality of consideration - which is why the famous 'peppercorn rent' exists. [1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppercorn_(law)

[ Parent | on HN ]