A New Zealand court has dismissed a woman’s lawsuit against her then-partner after he failed to take her to the airport, leading to her missing her flight before a concert with friends.
She then accused her boyfriend of allegedly violating a “verbal contract” in which he agreed to take her to the airport, stay at her house and take care of her dogs.
According to a legal document which only gives the initials of the applicant and the respondent, the woman (CL) said that she asked her boyfriend (HG) to pick her up from her house and take her to the airport between 10:00 and 10:15 am.
But he didn’t, he told the New Zealand Disputes Court, which deals with small claims of up to NZ$30,000 (£14,526).
As a result, CL said she missed her flight and had to foot the bill for additional costs, including traveling the next day and putting her dogs in a kennel.
In his complaint, he outlined details of the inconveniences he faced, including the costs of an airport shuttle.
The couple had been in a relationship for six and a half years until the dispute.
Before the case was dismissed, the court examined whether the woman’s boyfriend had signed a contract to take her to the airport and take care of her dogs.
The court also investigated whether the couple had signed a contract in which the boyfriend had said he would bear the costs of a separate ferry trip to visit the woman’s children.
CL said she paid for the ferry ticket for herself and her partner and wanted to be refunded the cost of the ticket.
On the condition that both things were true, the court analyzed whether the boyfriend breached the alleged contract.
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 they are unlikely to be legally enforceable unless the parties perform some act that demonstrates an intention to be bound by their promises,” court arbitrator Krysia Cowie wrote in the decision document.
“When friends don’t keep their promises, the other person may suffer a financial consequence, but they may not be able to be compensated for that loss.”
The arbitrator found that “the nature of the promises were exchanged as normal give and take in an intimate relationship” and fell short of a contract.
“As I have found that the parties reached an agreement in the context of their friendship, CL has not demonstrated that she is entitled to the order she seeks and her claim is dismissed.”
The court’s decision was made in March, but was not published until Thursday.