I would bet what Jake meant is that there is a chance that the units may be being sold for less than normal profit or for no profit at all. There are times that it is better for a manufacturer to get "something" out of goods than nothing at all.
Example: I work for a food manufacturing company that private labels retail foodstuffs. Sometimes we "forecast" and go ahead and package thousands of cases of "Company X" saltines. These items have a 6 month shelf life. Time comes and goes, and Company X doesn't place an order. When we are in the 5th month of the shelf life and the product hasn't shipped, we have two choices: Sell to a salvage store or scrap it. If we scrap it, we get pig food prices. If we sell it to a salvage store, we take less of a loss. Most of the time, we will sell to the salvage so that we lose less money.
Either way, this is obviously not a sustainable business model, but it does happen. We manufacturer thousands and thousands of SKUs on a 10 calendar day turnaround, so we have to "forecast". And just like the weatherman, sometimes we forecast wrong.
Maybe HF forecast how many mowers they were going to sell, and here we are at the end of the season, and they still have 10,000 mowers taking up space. They may have the choice of sitting on them to sell next year, but in the meantime, they planned on using that storage space for new inventory coming in. Now they have a choice: sell the mowers for less and get them out of the way, or buy/lease/rent more storage space so that they have room for both the mowers that didn't sell and the inventory that is coming in. Now, it will end up costing MORE to not sell the mowers, so you sell the mowers for a minimal profit, or no profit at all, just so you don't sink more money into them.
I have no idea if this is the case with the mowers, but I know that it happens with crackers. And like Brent says, we don't normally sell under cost - 'cause that doesn't make shareholders happy at all.