A New Zealand tribunal has dismissed a woman’s claim against her then-partner for failing to take her to the airport, causing her to miss her flight ahead of a concert with friends.
She accused her boyfriend at the time of breaching a “verbal contract” in which he agreed to take her to the airport, stay at her house, and look after her dogs.
According to a legal document, which only provides the initials of the applicant and respondent, the woman (CL) stated that she asked her boyfriend (HG) to pick her up from her home and take her to the airport between 10:00 and 10:15 am.
However, he did not show up, CL told New Zealand‘s Disputes Tribunal, which handles small claims up to NZ$30,000 (£14,526).
As a result, CL missed her flight and incurred additional expenses, including traveling the next day and placing her dogs in a kennel.
In her claim, she detailed the various inconveniences she faced, including the cost of a shuttle service to the airport.
The couple had been in a relationship for six and a half years before the dispute.
Before dismissing the case, the tribunal examined whether the woman’s boyfriend had indeed entered into a contract to take her to the airport and look after her dogs.
The tribunal also investigated whether the couple had agreed that the boyfriend would cover the costs for a separate ferry trip to visit the woman’s sons.
CL claimed she paid for both her own and her partner’s ferry fares and sought reimbursement for the cost of his ticket.
The tribunal examined whether the boyfriend had breached these alleged agreements.
It concluded that for an agreement to be enforceable, “there needs to be an intention to create a legally binding relationship,” which was not the case for CL and HG.
“Partners, friends and colleagues make social arrangements, but it is unlikely they can be legally enforced unless the parties perform some act that demonstrates an intention that they will be bound by their promises,” tribunal referee Krysia Cowie wrote in the decision document.
“When friends fail to keep their promises, the other person may suffer a financial consequence but it may be that they cannot be compensated for that loss.”
The referee found “the nature of the promises were exchanged as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship” and fell short of being a contract.
“As I have found that the parties made their agreement in the context of their friendship, CL has not shown she is entitled to the order that she seeks and her claim is dismissed.”
The tribunal’s decision was taken in March, but only published on Thursday.