- A New Zealand woman took her boyfriend to a disputes tribunal for not taking her to the airport.
- The woman said that the boyfriend's promise to take her there was a verbal contract.
- But the tribunal dismissed the claim, saying it couldn't justify ordering her to be compensated.
A woman from New Zealand took her long-term boyfriend to a disputes tribunal for failing to keep his promise to take her to the airport.
According to a tribunal order released on Thursday and first published by The Guardian, the woman said they had been in a relationship for six and a half years until the dispute arose.
The couple's names have been redacted.
The woman said her boyfriend had promised to take her to the airport and look after her two dogs while she attended a concert with friends.
She argued that this promise constituted a "verbal contract," which she claimed had been breached by him not keeping his word.
According to the order, he did not arrive to collect her and take her to the airport on the day she was due to travel, resulting in her missing her flight.
The woman told the tribunal that this resulted in additional expenses, including arranging travel for the following day, paying for a shuttle to the airport, and kennel fees for her dogs.
The tribunal examined the claim to determine whether the boyfriend had entered into a contract and, in turn, whether he owed her compensation.
Ultimately, the judge dismissed the claim, explaining that friends often let each other down, but this does not mean compensation is owed.
"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," the order said.
In addition, it said that while financial consequences may arise from broken plans, the courts consider these "non-recoverable losses" unless the promise went beyond a favor between friends.
"In this case, I find that the nature of the promises was exchanged as a normal give-and-take in an intimate relationship," the tribunal ruled.
The order explained that, in this case, the promise fell short of being a contract, and just formed part of the "everyday family and domestic relationship agreements that are not enforceable in the Disputes Tribunal."