[ad_1]
A New Zealand A woman has taken her long-term boyfriend to a dispute tribunal for breaching an “oral contract” by failing to drive her to the airport, causing her to miss a concert flight and forcing her to delay her trip by a day.
The woman told New Zealand’s disputes tribunal that she had been in a relationship with the man for six-and-a-half years until the disagreement arose.
According to the order of the tribunal, released on Thursday with names redacted, the woman had arranged to attend a concert with several friends. Her boyfriend agreed to drive her to the airport and stay at her house to take care of her two dogs while she was gone.
She texted him the day before with a time frame of 10 to 10:15 a.m. when she was to be picked up. But he never arrived, causing the woman to miss her flight.
The woman said she incurred numerous expenses as a result, including the cost of travel the next day, airport transfers and boarding her dogs.
She also paid for ferry tickets for her and her boyfriend to go on holiday at different times to visit her sons and claimed she should be refunded the cost of his ticket.
The woman testified that she made a “verbal contract” with her partner that he would drive her to the airport and take care of her dogs.
She claims the man “likes to stay at her house” as he has taken care of her dogs in the past.
But tribunal referee Krysia Cowie said that for an agreement to be enforceable there must be an intention to create a “legally binding relationship”.
“Partners, friends, and colleagues make social arrangements, but they are unlikely to be legally enforceable unless the parties perform some act that demonstrates an intent to be bound by their promises,” she wrote.
“When friends fail to keep their promises, the other may suffer financial consequences, but may not be able to be compensated for that loss.
“There are many examples of friends disappointing their friend, but the courts have held that this is an irreparable loss unless the promise goes beyond a service between friends and becomes a promise by which they intend to be bound.” “
Cowie found that the nature of the promises was “exchanged as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship” and there was “nothing to indicate an intention between the parties” that the woman’s friend would be bound by his promises.
“The parties took no steps to show an intention to take the agreement out of a promise made between friends and create legally binding consequences,” she wrote.
“Although a promise was made, it is not a contract. It is part of everyday family and household agreements that are not enforceable in a dispute tribunal.
According to the warrant, the boyfriend emailed that he would not be attending the tribunal hearing and did not return a follow-up call from the tribunal referee.
The claim was dismissed.
[ad_2]
-
-
-
-
