Woman Attempts to Sue Ex-Boyfriend for Breach of 'Verbal Contract' After He Fails to Drive Her to Airport

The woman took her claim to a tribunal after her now-ex-partner failed to show up for her drive to the airport

<p>Getty</p> A stock image outside Auckland International Airport.


A stock image outside Auckland International Airport.
  • A woman in New Zealand accused her now-ex-partner of breaching a "verbal contract" after he failed to show up to take her to the airport

  • The man had also reportedly agreed to take care of her two dogs, so she also tried to claim for the cost of putting her dogs into a kennel

  • The couple split following the dispute after six and a half years together

A woman in New Zealand was so unimpressed when her then-boyfriend failed to drive her to the airport that she accused him of breaching a "verbal contract."

Per an order from the country's Disputes Tribunal that was released on Thursday, June 20, the woman claimed she was left out of pocket after her now-ex didn't turn up at around 10:00 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. that day as planned.

The man had also reportedly agreed to take care of her two dogs, per the order, so she claimed she not only had to spend money on travel the following day, but also had to pay for a shuttle to the airport — and had to shell out money to put her dogs into a kennel.

At the time, the then-couple — listed as CL and HG in documents seen by PEOPLE — had been in a relationship for six and a half years, but split amid the dispute. The woman was due to attend a concert with friends when she missed the flight, and the man was meant to stay at her house and pet-sit while she was gone; something he enjoyed doing, according to the documents.

<p>Getty</p> A stock image outside Auckland Airport.


A stock image outside Auckland Airport.

Related: Couples Sue Fertility Clinic, Alleging Women Were Implanted with Dead and Toxic Embryos (Exclusive)

The woman said she also paid for the cost of ferry tickets for her ex, as well as paying for a trip in December 2023 to go and visit her sons, asking the tribunal to have him reimburse her for the price of his ticket.

Per the doc, dated March 7, 2024, the couple cohabited for a few years while they were together, but were living in their own homes at the time of the argument after her then-partner's son moved back in with him.

Tribunal referee Ms Cowie dismissed the claim, stating in the paper, "For an agreement to be enforceable there needs to be an intention to create a legally binding relationship. 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."

"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 document added. "There are many examples of friends who have let their friend down, however, the courts have maintained that it is a non-recoverable loss unless the promise went beyond being a favor between friends and become a promise that they intend to be bound by."

Related: Traveler Tracks Down Her Missing Luggage — and Finds It at Florida Airport Worker’s Home

Cowie stated she found the "nature of the promises exchanged" in this case "as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship" and that there was "nothing that indicated an intention between the parties" that the ex-partner "would be bound by the promises he made."

"The parties did not take any steps to show an intention to take the agreement out of a promise made between friends and to create legally binding consequences," the referee wrote.

Never miss a story — sign up for PEOPLE's free daily newsletter to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer, from juicy celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.

"Although a promise was made, it falls short of being a contract. It forms part of the everyday family and domestic relationship agreements that are not enforceable in the Disputes Tribunal," Ms Cowie continued, adding that she was dismissing the case as she "found that the parties made their agreement in the context of their friendship."

Per the order, the respondent sent an email stating he wouldn't be attending the hearing by phone, and despite the referee calling anyway in case he changed his mind, he didn't answer.

For more People news, make sure to sign up for our newsletter!

Read the original article on People.