Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
TagsFreehold retailer denies prom dress refund to teen after date is killed in car accident
BY BOB HOLT
NEWJERSEYNEWSROOM.COM
For her upcoming prom, Jackie Genovese bought a $1,200 dress at Diane and Co. of Freehold, which is also featured on the Oxygen network program, "Jersey Couture."
Then came a terrible tragedy. The 16-year old Genovese’s boyfriend of two years, James Volpe, was killed in a car accident coming home from a baseball team dinner on May 13, shortly before graduation, MyFoxNY.com reported.
Now Diane and Co. refuses to refund the $1,200 dress and would only give Genovese store credit. The store’s owners said they would make a donation to a memorial in James' honor but would not refund the money for the dress.
Genovese said she wanted the money from the refund to pay for her boyfriend's funeral. "I just wanted the dress out of my house, I would just hysterically cry all the time when I see it," Genovese said to the New York Daily News. "I just wanted to give the money to his family because they mean so much to me."
The owner's daughter, Christine Scali told Freehold Patch that her family felt under attack during a telephone conversation about the refund. The store has a no-returns policy.According to Scali, the store returned a dress for Genovese in January, then the store received a call from Genovese’s mother wanting to return the second dress for a refund a week before Volpe’s accident.
After the accident, Diane and Co. received another call asking to return the dress for a refund, which was refused. After the Scalis were informed of Volpe’s death, they offered to take the dress back in exchange for credit, Christine Scali said.
Jackie Genovese’s mother said it was really simple.
"All she had to do was give back the money and she could have been a hero," said Jackie’s mother.
The mother of one of Jackie's friends, Nanci Whelan, has put up a Facebook page entitled "Boycott Diane & Co. Freehold NJ," which has just under 15,000 supporters.
http://www.facebook.com/boycottdianeandco#!/boycottdianeandco
.
One – Diane & Co. initially claimed that this mother tried to get a refund “a whole week” before the accident. Now, the above facts say it was just “one day” before. Which fact is true?
Two – Facts #2 & #3 are essentially the same thing. Maybe this should be retitled three important facts?
Three – These “facts” are unfortunately mostly ad hominem. If you remove all of the assertions about the character flaws of the mother, there would not be much copy left. When one has to tear down another in order to stand, it implies that one’s own position lacks integrity.
Four – This sounds like a bitter divorce situation, which is tragic for the child. Yet, why should we put stock into the husband’s assessment? Just because he sides with Diane & Co.? He could have as much of a vendetta against the mother as he says she has against him. His assessment of the mother’s motivation is not a “fact”.
Engaging in professional mud-slinging is not going to counter any damage done to this business, even if such was undue. We each stand or fall based on our own actions. I find this attempt at restoration much more damaging than the initial actions of which they are accused.
There are benefits to taking the high road, even in “PR”. I would NEVER frequent a business which approved that type of response to "doctor their reputation", even if the mother was as crazy as a jaybird.
This business is hurting itself more than the girl (or her mother) ever can by their own catty responses.
Here is her biological father's facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/notes/keith-genovese/must-read-message-from-jacqueline-genovese-father-keith-genovese/104421299649803
Something many may not take into account when they read a story like this is that when someone buys a dress from a store like 'Diane & Co.', it is not at all like purchasing off the rack from your local Walmart. These dresses are custom fitted for the purchaser, thus making it very nearly impossible to resell it unless serendipity intervenes. So why then is it fair to place this burden on the merchant who very clearly attempted to bend their own rules to accommondate Ms. Genovese only to be subjected to a public smear campaign?
It seems clear from the story that Miss Genovese had attempted to return the dress prior to the accident and was unable to achieve the outcome she desired. So it also seems a little suspect that the only reason she now wants a refund is associated with the death of her boyfriend.
And I must reiterate again, she bought a dress that probably may have been worn only one time that is worth more than the monthly income of 36 million Americans living below the poverty line. This is NOT a family that does not have the financial wherewithal to afford the cost of funeral expenses.
I do feel badly that this young lady has to endure such a devastating tragic event at such an early time in her life. But I also feel badly that this store owner is being subjected to such unwarranted defamation.
And as far as your opinion that you are so entitled to~~~you are just as heartless as they are!!!
Elaine from Glen Rock, NJ
Although a tragic incident has occurred in the life of Jackie Genovese, it is not the result of any actions on the part of 'Diane & Co' and they can't be made to take a financial hit every time one of their customers has a personal tragedy. It's clear they have a "no refund" policy, yet did make an offer to extend store credit ... something that many stores will enforce on returns.
Let's also be clear about one more thing. A teenager who has the means to purchase a $1200 dress very surely has the means to access other funds. We aren't discussing destitute people here.
It's sad to say, but from the history this person had with an attempt to return her dress, it seems she is using this tragedy as a means to prompt public outcry to achieve her goal of getting her money back.
That to me is the real miscarriage here ... the manipulation of public sentiment for purely selfish reasons.