The definition of donation means to give willingly. They owned those dresses, they had the right to dispose of them in any way they chose to. Too many people expect something for free, that's why there is an uproar. Supermarkets have the right to dump food that is past the sell-by date even though I'm sure it's plenty good still and would help out alot of hungry people. If I want to go into my backyard and pull all the lemons and oranges off MY tree and toss them in the trash, that's my right.

It's a gimme gimme world lately. Quit expecting the free handout folks.

so you'd just pitch the lemons and oranges on your tree in the trash rather than share? oh, yeah, that's right, you're sour & bitter enough.

Sounds like I won't ever recommend or shop David's Bridal. Shame on them. Others should also boycott David's Bridal too. It has nothing to do with "gimme". It has to do with GIVING. Not to mention a tax write off they would have received.

It's their property, they have the right to do with it as they please, and that would include destroying oranges, food, or cows.

No one has any right to anything of someone elses.

I've lived in Minnesota for the past 8 years and have been to this Priscilla of Boston location. We're talking about one of the most exclusive areas of Edina. Very pretty locale, caters to people with money.

If they couldn't bear to donate the dresses, why not return the inventory to Alfred Angelo? Was it that much work?

Outrageous. Yet another reason why I am glad I never purchased a big wedding gown for my wedding--it would've been a waste of money.

PS. I agree that many worthwhile, charitable organizations, could've done wonderful things with those dresses... A shame, really.

The people whining in this article need to get a life. The owners could do as please with "their" property, even act like jackasses. And, MSN once again successfully pits people against each other like a circle of children egging on a fight. Chris from Yucaipa, (most) stores are mandated by law to dispose of out of date food, can't donate it.

If people would buy the dresses, then maybe the stores could stay it business. Cant stay open when people know soon you will mark everything down 90% off or give it away.

Chris, this isn't about expecting free handouts. Nobody is bringing a lawsuit. Nobody is saying that David's Bridal had any obligation to do anything more than what they did. All people are commenting on is the sad state of affairs when a company would put so much effort into destroying inventory that could have very effortlessly been donated to help others.

It is your right to buy a cheeseburger, fly to Somalia, and stomp it into the ground in front of a hungry village. You'd still be a total jackass if you did.

Apparently you people don't get it. The dresses were unsalvageable...meaning the dresses were in terrible condition. What is worse, destroying unsalvageable goods or donating them to a charity that is just going to have to throw them away themselves? I can tell you because I used to work for a charity. Anytime there was a disasterer we would be inundated with useless garbage we would have to spend hours sorting through and then throw most of it away. A lot of people don't think before they donate. They just clear out their closets, cabinets, and drawers of things they don't want anymore, regardless of condition. They throw it all in a box and drop it off thinking they've just done a great thing. When all they did was find a convenient way to get rid of their junk all at once and get a tax write off.

APPARENTLY YOU dont get it. The women that took these photos said specifically some of the dresses were still in boxes and most had only minor damage if ANY. They were RIGHT THERE looking at the destruction as it happened. What do you think they couldnt see with their own eyes what was going on? And HOW pray tell are they going to get insurance money from purposely destroyed items? I dont get insurance money for burning down my OWN HOUSE!! I get put in jail for FRAUD! Its just fat cat mentality. This is MINE and YOU cant have it. Grocery stores donate food that is past the sell by date to the Salvation Army and other locations for districution to the poor. Places like Amvets and Goodwill take in donations of furniture, clothing, shoes, and more to sell to people with minimized budgets. What this was an example of was waste. Yes it was their merchandise to do with as they pleased, we are aware of that but they basically took money and flushed it down the toilet. I completely agree with StopAndThink's analogy. It was their right to do what they did but it was a waste and a shame.

Because it was their inventory to do with as they pleased and not give it away to a bunch of ingrates. So many people believe that they are owed something for nothing, just like those who think that someone who is rich owed the world something instead of buying that 30 million dollar mansion. It's their money and they can do what they want with it. Nobody has the right to insists or insinuate that havers must share with have-nots, especially when you think about how many of the have-nots are just have-their hands out types. Frankly, I agree with what they did. Just look how many whiners have come forward insisting that what these people did, with their own merchandise, was wrong. Irritating maybe, but not wrong.

Jessica Franzus Johnson

I said nothing about insurance. I was talking usefulness. Thank you very much. And just because a dress was still in the box DOES NOT mean it was not damaged goods. And were these women who took the pictures seamstresses. What may appear minor damage to an untrained eye could really be unrepairable in an experts opinion.

Realist, if the merchandise was truly beyond salvaging then that is a different situation and I agree with you. My reaction is based on the article which quotes others who have seen the merchandise as saying that at least some was in great condition. If they didn't feel like sorting through the chaffe, they very easily could have given it to an organization that would.

Moral duty and legal right are very different things.

All of you whining, crying, and bitching need to scroll down and read post #10 by literfairy who posted the truth behind the article.

so you'd just pitch the lemons and oranges on your tree in the trash rather than share? oh, yeah, that's right, you're sour & bitter enough.

I personally juice my fruit. However, if ever had the urge to toss them uneaten, that is my right. It doesn't make me very charitable I know, and pretty wasteful for doing so, but there isn't a single bit of it that's any of your business.

There seems to be a segment of our population who feels the needs to tell people what to do with their property. I see the comments on Newsvine constantly, where people are whining about such-and-such millionaire spent lavish amounts of HIS/HER money on some trinket/house/car/dog etc etc. "oh why didn't he go and spend that money on helping feed those guys at the West Hollywood homeless shelter instead?" Well, why does he even bother to work then, if it's expected he has to fork over his pay to fit someone else's agenda?

As someone below posted, those dresses were unsalable. When you can't sell a wedding dress that's marked down to 99 cents, there is a probably a valid reason for it.

I personally think he should have posted an ad in the paper about Free Dresses, lined them all up on racks, let the crowd gather ahead of time then open the doors. Film the feeding frenzy as the women fight and claw for the scraps, then sell the footage for much more than the dresses were worth.

I love how spoiled brat Americans with their first world problems bitch about having the "right" to be unrepentantly wasteful, greedy, and selfish.

I love how spoiled brat Americans with their first world problems bitch about having the "right" to be unrepentantly wasteful, greedy, and selfish.

Americans are "spoiled" because we have earned it. America didn't become the most prosperous nation on the planet by accident. It seems that we may be a little of course right now and our economy is showing it, but our prosperity as a nation was earned by the blood sweat and tears of our fathers, mothers and ancestors. Yes, we are spoiled, but a lot of people worked very hard to ensure that. Sure, some people, the Madoffs of the world, aquire wealth in ways that are immoral, unethical and illegal. We need laws and regulations to catch up. Cronyism must end. I thank God that Americans are finally getting fed up with the status quo.

When something is yours it your right to do with it what you please. While I abhor waste I respect ownership rights. I try really hard to be an informed consumer. I won't buy goods from companies known to me to have values or practices that are wrong (sweat shops, child labor, etc) or irresponsible (wasteful, deceitful, etc.). David's Bridal is now on this list. If the dresses were truly worthless then why the need to spray paint them? Why not just simply throw them away? How is paying an employee to handle ever single dress more efficent than just discarding them entire racks at a time?



The definition of donation means to give willingly

What a logically fallacious argument you have Chris.

Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't make it right. Simply because someone has the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean they should.

Like your example, it's your right to throw away all your perfectly good lemons and oranges or whatever.... but that doesn't make you any less of a selfish idiot for doing so.

What a logically fallacious argument you have Chris.

Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't make it right. Simply because someone has the RIGHT to do something, doesn't mean they should.

Back at you. Just because someone CAN do something, doesn't mean they HAVE to. That's the whole concept of being free to choose. And while that might make me a "selfish idiot" for doing so, it's actually none of your concern that I do.

@WSkelton80

If the dresses were truly worthless then why the need to spray paint them?

I can see a valid reason for it, actually. A company should have certain standards for their products. If the dresses were really as bad as one of the previous posters claim, then to toss them out in the trash "as is" for dumpster divers to dig out and try and pawn off on someone as a dress from Dave's Bridal, I can see the owner making sure that doesn't happen.

Most manufacturers have quality assurance practices that will recycle products not up to snuff, but I really don't see it as very practical to recycle a wedding dress that's already pretty rough looking. I'm sure the owners of this place are wishing they had just quietly taken them out to the desert and burned them instead.

Somebody was really, really angry.

Peggy:

Now THAT would have been worth reporting in this article. As it is, all we read was the disdain of the offended.

They did it because, for some reason, they decided not to return them and they didn't want people digging them out of the dumpster. Maybe they did it for tax reasons...who knows?

Well now you're just grasping at straws. There is no tax write-off for destroying your own merchandise. There is however a tax write-off for charitable donation.

The word maybe means possibly. When I said who knows? I meant we don't know the reason behind their decision to throw the dresses away. They obviously spray painted them because they didn't want people digging them out of the garbage.

When I worked in retail, we were instructed to destroy items. Often, the company or vendor we get them from doesn't want them back after a return or in the case of old/excess merchandise so in order to comply with the terms the company had for processing our returns to them the items are destroyed. The items are destroyed to hopefully prevent people taking the items from the dumpster and then trying to return the item to a store for cash or other goods. Often the store has no choice to but to destroy the items--per the request of the vendor. To do otherwise would be dishonest. It is not honest to tell the company you will destroy the items and then do otherwise with them. Books have the front cover ripped off when they are destroyed. Electronics are smashed. Many vendors also won't allow their items to be clearanced. That is probably why the vera wang dress valued at $6000 was still there.

I've worked clothing retail as well. Where I worked, the items that were considered in good shape were donated to charity--and marked as such to prevent returns. The other items were destroyed--things with broken zippers, ripped seams, etc. Things that could be fixed, but people who receive charity often don't have the means of doing.

Since the entire chain is closing there isn't a possibility of shipping the items to another store. Think about it from the other side. Why would vera wang want to take back an old design of hers and try to find another store to sell it. Giving it to charity really means anyone can own a vera wang and that takes away the exclusivity of having her dress and thus devalues her brand. If you can get a vera wang at goodwill for dirt cheap why pay $6000. And as a competitor to this bridal house would you want buy their inventory to try and sell the dresses they couldn't? You probably have similar (if not the same) dresses already in your store.

Yes, its a huge waste. One that is passed along to customers in the price of the items we purchase. Let's come up with an idea that will take care of the problem from both sides. The solution needs to maintain the integrity/exclusivity of the brand. The soultion needs to eliminate the wastefulness, be cost effective to carry out (not labor intensive) and somehow has to make sure the products aren't returned to a store by someone in hopes of making a buck, or looking for something else.

I agree with almost everything you said. The one thing I disagree with is that Vera Wang's name has any exclusivity still attached to it. When she started putting her name on stuff at Kohl's and on mattresses and linens, she lost any exclusivity she had. If you're buying a Vera Wang wedding dress from a retailer like this, it's not exclusive...there's 1000 of them out there. If Vera Wang is personally making your wedding dress...that's exclusive, but would also cost upwards of $25,000.

What a shame. Plenty of homeless shelters, shelters for domestic violence, homeless teen programs etc.. that could use that food. I think stores probably could write off the foodstuff as a donation instead of as damaged goods. They probably have employees that could have really used the food too.

That is a federal law!!!! It does not please the store owners to do this. It takes time and manpower better used elsewhere. They have no choice.

skrewedworld....And if the store gave that outdated food away to people and those people got deathly sick from eating it....then the store would sued, not to mention "skrewed".

There is a marked difference between perishable goods and garments....

Garments that are completely unnecessary.

There are a lot of things that are "unnecessary" that could still bring happiness to others at no cost to anyone else. You've heard of toys-for-tots? Toys are unnecessary. I still think it's nice that people donate toys they would otherwise throw out to make Christmas more enjoyable for less fortunate children.

Look, i'm very fiscally conservative, but part of the very ARGUMENT for fiscal conservatism is that the government should not be in the business of charity when private organizations and individuals do a much better job. How can anyone say that is true in this instance?

Who said anything about the government???

Yes, toys are unnecessary, but people CHOOSE to donate to toys for tots. If I buy a toy that I was going to give to my family member, but for some reason choose not to and DON'T donate it to Toys For Tots, does that make me a bad person? Or would you even care?

No, you wouldn't be a bad person. Possibly lazy. But again, you have no obligation to do anything.

Look i'm not even trying to argue, all i'm saying is that at the absolute very least they could have thrown them in the dumpster without spray painting them. It would have taken less effort and those willing to recover them from that dumpster would find use for them. I find it hard to justify going out of one's way to make sure that because you can't have something, nobody can.

Just my $0.02. On to more pressing things.

beside destroying some thing to claim insurance is fraud which is criminal, maybe you husband should rethink what he is doing because he is a player in the insurance scam his employer is doing.

StopAndThink....I was commenting to people who complained about stores destroying outdated food. Post #3.1 My comment didn't say a word about clothing now, did it?

Ed...It has never been established that destroying the dresses was done for insurance purposes. The dresses were in shabby condition. Even poor people don't want to be insulted by being handed some piece of crap. Poor doesn't mean they have no dignity.

@winterlover: Another poster said they were in the store when it had a "closing" sale where dresses were incredibly discounted. If I were the store I would have been like "if they don't want a $6k dress for $300 they ain't gettin' it free!! I don't blame the store at all. Yeah shoulda-coulda-woulda, they had other options. Maybe the makers would not allow them to be returned. Bottom line: The store owned the dresses and had the right to do with them as they pleased.

Sure they did, but they are still d!cks for doing it.

What charities are you suggesting. To those who want a big fancy wedding but are too poor or lazy to pay for one? Perhaps they should be looking to find a better job before getting married. Why does anyone owe these people anything anyway. Lose your possession in a fire, you are needy. Lose your possessions in a tornado, etc, you are needy. Not make enough money to buy your own wedding dress you are an oxygen thief.

Lose your posessions in a fire or tornado...you should've had insurance.

Maureen, I was thinking the same thing. Most poor people don't even get married. The women skip right over the jumping the broom part to pregnancy. And, their govt. subsidies might be decreased if they get married. I think that women should realize that the most important gown they will ever wear is a cap & gown from an accredited 4 year university.

There are many charities who operate thrift stores that sell merchandise to help their clients. So the dresses might not have been given to the "poor", might have been sold to others with profits going to good causes. Also, where is your proof that poor people don't get married? I think that is a bit sterotypical. I know the company has their policies and since they own the merchandise, it is within their rights to dispose of it as they see fit. It just makes me a bit sad that if any of the dresses could have been used to help others, they were destroyed instead.

Hi Jazz: We live on the outskirts of an area where there is an over abudance of "poor" people. Most of the child bearing aged women do not marry the baby daddy. Also, most of the time those kids are being raised by the grandmother. Prior to that, I lived in a large city--same thing with those considered below the poverty level. My proof is what I see, who I know, and in the number of women who received govt. subsidies. Not saying that every poor person doesn't get married, it seems that the majority do not legally wed or have a 2-parent family. Further, I personally don't know any that are married, but I do know that if they get married, the subsidies would decrease. I can post all the real life examples you wish, but that would be a very long post.

My proof is what I see,

Your proof is anecdotal only.

Sure, they can do what they want - and they did. What people THINK about that destruction and what it says about the business is another matter. And I see no reason to destroy something that might benefit something or someone. And all the "they can do whatever they want" comments makes me wonder about the message being sent by that wanton destruction and those who think it is just peachy.

Some people just absolutely cannot stand seeing someone else get something they didn't get. It's like a kid sitting with half a cake on his plate, complaining about the kid across the table getting a crumb.

A "right" is sometimes wrong. They can do it and they did, but there is nothing good in it at all.

Wow thank you for the insight, I am glad someone got the whole story before judging this shop. It's nice too see a few people are attempting to set the record straight on this one.

The people on here screaming in outrage are the ones that expected to get something for nothing... This has gotten to be a normal response to ones right to do with THEIR property as they see fit..

This store owes nothing to the "public". They have sold their wares and these items weren't sold in a timely manner prior to the stores closing. They are under no obligation to give them away...

Besides, we are not talking common clothing here.. or food, or anything else that would be for the "public good"...

Donate them to a humane society as bedding for the pets?

Yay, Jeanette. Very creative and inventive idea. I guess some of embellishments and materials couldn't be used for that purpose, but there is always SOMETHING that can be done with large pieces of left over material and beads, etc., for those who are crafty. I'm an animal lover, and if I were creative enough to do stuff like that, I'd sell the stuff and donate the proceeds to my favorite no kill kitty shelter. For now, they get my old bedspreads and blankets.

It's my understanding that there's more than one Priscilla of Boston store, so unless you are saying you went to that same store and saw the condition of these dresses that were thrown out, your experience at another store really doesn't matter.

Look, no one is saying there should be a law, they're just expressing dissappointment that better use wasn't made of recyclable materials - especially from eyewitness accounts who say some of the dresses were in good shape. As a costume designer for a non-profit community theatre my heart sank. We count on donations, sometimes the clothes are usable as is, sometimes they are broken down and used as parts of other costumes. We also ask if it would be okay to to take still wearable, contemporary suits and coats to organizations like Dress for Success and Coats for Kids, and the donors are thrilled.

I never throw usable goods away - I'll go through Goodwill, Salvation Army and Freecycle because even if I have no use for them, I'm not so selfish and self-centered that I'm not going to let someone else use it if they can.

Unfortunately, the truth just came out on HLN.The high-end makers ordered the dresses destroyed so that poor people(who did not "live up" to their usual clientelle standards) would not be seen in them!

Yep. Figured as much. Wow, that's a GOOD reason right? /s/

@Dave, that makes no sense. They destroyed them to remainder them.

This is STANDARD practice. They had already deeply deeply discounted the dresses. The only ones that were left were the ones that had not been sold at discount (which put pricey dresses into the category of very affordable). PoB and DB or VW or whomever don't care what tax bracket you're in, as long as your money is green.

Panic Moon,

The chain has maybe 12 or 15 stores. I was at the one in Coral Gables and my bridesmaid was at the one in Ardmore (Philadelphia). Same story at both stores. THeir website at the time corroborates my account. If dresses were marked down that severely and more so for months and no one--not even their own bridal seamstresses--bought them, there IS a reason. I'm not saying they shouldn't have considered donation. I'm just saying that the story is more complex than presented in the article. I also think we can all agree that some clothing is unfit for donation. Do you donate EVERY single piece of clothing and EVERY pair of shoes you get rid of? Of course not. You don't donate old underwear, white shirts with pit stains, split pants, shoes where the upper has detached. And if you do, trust me, Goodwill throws them away. When I previously looked into donating the dress from my first wedding, I found that the charities were very strict on what they would accept. Very strict. Look some up. The coolest one, I think, is the one that takes dresses and gives them to breast cancer survivers.

Do you have any proof of this aside from your well known psychic abilities? It amazes me that things like you can openly share your worthless opinions.

More likely they wanted to try and save the dresses for themselves, friends, family members or at least salvage parts of dresses to make new ones. Who would buy a dress that badly damaged on Ebay? If they did it would'nt be for much. ITs no worse than what the store did and post #10 says all the best dresses had already been sold and the remains were likely sample dresses used just for trying on and ordering a new gown. The store could have packed them in a box and had a charity pick them up easily. More like the were pissed they had to go out of business. Stupid immature action and they can't cash in on insurance as it wasn't unknown vandals breaking in and doing the damage.

@genome - you must be really pissed you didn't get one free just like these other free-loaders posting their pissed opinions.

Besides, in order to legally get the tax write-off, the dresses had to be thrown away. If they took the tax write-off and then done something else with them the free-loaders would still be pissed at them for defrauding the govt.

Mom90210 - They could have taken a tax write off by donating them to a charitable thrift store.

Interesting if the dresses were already unusable that they had to spray paint them.

Actualy they can't take a tax write off....they have already deducted the cost of the goods or will when they dispose of them. Thus they have no basis in the gowns, thus no write off...

It's their property, they can do what they want with them...

What? do they get their dresses made in third world countries? If they do skrewwww them.

I don't know about David's Bridal bad service or anything else you speak of. My experience with them in 1996 was wonderful. I didn't have one problem with choosing a gown, getting the alterations done on time, or fitting into my beautiful dress. But, I had worked in another bridal shop previously that was family owned and operated and just about everyone that used them complained about the service or something going wrong with their order.

Why should they? Because they didn't give you something for free? Something that THEY had paid for? That THEY own? Something that didn't sell in the alloted time prior to the stores closing?

These stores don't owe you or anyone else anything. This isn't everyday clothing or food that would benefit the public... Your just pissed because you (or someone else) didn't get something for nothing..

I don't really see anybody saying they should have given these dresses away to the public. Most people think they should have been donated to a charity thrift store or a specialty organization that takes bridal gowns and gives them to people with breast cancer who cannot afford a nice gown due to their catastrophic illness.

And just as David's Bridal had every right to do what they wanted with their merchandise, consumers have every right to boycott a store when the store does something they don't like or agree with and can ask others to join them in that action. And neither you nor I have to agree or disagree with either David's Bridal action or the boycott.

They may not "owe anyone anything" but why ruin and throw something decent away just because you can't profit from it? That's ridiculous waste of resources and if you haven't noticed, this country is getting too poor for people to just blatantly waste things for the hell of it anymore.

If anyone could find something of use in my trash I would be happy for them to take it. Waste not, want not. What is wrong with you people that you would actually begrudge others the use of crap YOU DON'T EVEN WANT?!?

The law, at least in Florida, allows others to take things from your trash as long as it is on the curb. It's called "prior abandonment". It's the same law that allows police and PIs to go through your trash without a warrant.

Please read the entire article prior to putting your foot in your mouth.. They are OWNED BY DAVIDS BRIDAL.

Please note that they had a "going out of business sale" prior to doing this... some of those dresses had been marked down as much as 80% yet they didn't sell...

This company doesn't owe anyone but their employees anything and yet you people scream to the sky about not having benefitted from their loss.. How sad.

Cool. Tye-died wedding dress, a couple of doobies, bare feet, a beach. Sounds like the perfect wedding. Sounds like the one I had, except I wore a $30 white sundress from Newport News. :D

Priscilla's is going out of business after 65 years. Not really anyone to boycott.

What is a waste is that you would dare to boycott a company that attempted to sell these items long before they closed their doors.. tried selling them at much reduced rates and yet they still didn't sell...

So you want to boycott them because they didn't give them away... shame on you. It is THEIR PROPERTY to do with as THEY SEE FIT... They paid for them. You didn't.. therefore you have no say in the matter.

They get the tax write off BECAUSE they threw them away, NOT because they were damaged. The store just made sure the IRS couldn't come after them for fraud. Which is what it would have been if the store had thrown them away and then the public went dumpster diving. Blame it on the IRS. But really, if the public didn't want to pay a reasonable price for the dresses, why should the store give them away? I've sold my property for reasonable prices, things I gave my hard earned money for, but I'm not giving it away to some schmuck who thinks they ought to get something for nothing.

Bless you.. the voice of reason among a sea of screaming women with their hands out...

We're not saying give it away. Donate it. It's still a tax write off for the company, and you'd be doing some good with merchandise that otherwise would go wasted.

Why is willful destruction of property ok when you can donate it, still get a tax break, and do some good? What's the upside to the willful destruction of the merchandise? Explain that.

Donating is giving it away.

mssuzieq: I don't disagree with you, but it seems like most people are appalled by wasting of the product. However, wedding gowns are a waste in an of themselves. Maybe they should turn the "wasted" ones into divorce gowns.

Marlene: now there's an idea.

Cat: no, a donation may mean you're giving away an item, but not only does the organization get a tax write-off, but the charity receving it can use the raw material or hold an auction benefitting whatever, and it becomes far more than just a "donated" item.

One may give it away, but it's the spirit in which it is given that should matter most.

It would have been better if you read the article prior to posting your comment..

They tried selling them. They didn't sell at as much as 80% off.. the store owns the inventory. It is their right to do with their merchandise as they see fit. These screaming hordes are just pissed because they couldn't get something for free...

I could see all these people being upset if these were dresses that brides had ordered and then the store went out of business and spray painted the dresses that had been purchased, but these were leftover stock that after several discounts still didn't sell because of excessive wear.

No one's day was ruined.

Love it! Great point!

Remember the guy that wrote the book '101 Uses For My Ex-Wife's Wedding Dress"? All kinds of people were outraged about that.

You do, or you wouldn't have commented, troll.