Man files lawsuit against girlfriend due to boyfriend's decision to forgo airport drop-off
In a recent decision by the Disputes Tribunal in New Zealand, a woman's claim for reimbursement from her former boyfriend was dismissed. The case highlights the complexities surrounding verbal contracts in romantic relationships, especially when it comes to proving intent and enforceability.
The woman had entered into a verbal agreement with her boyfriend, who had promised to take her to the airport and look after her dogs. However, the Disputes Tribunal's decision was based on the premise that the promises made were not intended to be legally binding. The tribunal referee, Krysia Cowie, argued that the promises were exchanged as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship.
The incident occurred before the couple parted ways. The woman incurred costs for adding another day to travel, organising a shuttle to the airport, and putting her dogs in a kennel. She also paid for ferry tickets for herself and her boyfriend to visit her sons, and argued for the reimbursement of her boyfriend's ticket cost. However, her former boyfriend did not attend the tribunal hearing and did not respond to a follow-up call from the referee.
The Disputes Tribunal's decision was not successful for the woman claiming reimbursement. The tribunal stated that an agreement needs to have an intention to create a legally binding relationship. In this case, there was no such intention between the parties, according to Krysia Cowie.
This decision is consistent with the principles governing verbal contracts in romantic relationships in common law countries, including New Zealand. Courts may enforce a verbal contract if there is clear evidence of the agreement, intent, and reliance. However, proving such a contract can be challenging, and it is advisable to document agreements in writing where possible.
It is important to note that a promise between friends that goes beyond being a favor is the only exception to the non-recoverable loss rule. This means that if a friend promises to do something and fails to deliver, the aggrieved party generally cannot recover any losses. However, if the promise involves an enforceable obligation, such as financial support or property sharing, it may be possible to enforce the contract in court.
In conclusion, while verbal contracts in romantic relationships can be enforceable in New Zealand courts when there is clear evidence of agreement, intent, and reliance, they are difficult to prove and thus advisable to document in writing where possible. This case serves as a reminder for individuals to be mindful of the potential legal implications of their promises and agreements in intimate relationships.
Despite the woman's attempt to seek reimbursement from her former boyfriend through the Disputes Tribunal, her claim was dismissed due to the informal nature of their agreement, which was deemed a social-media post or casual conversation rather than entertainment, falling under the category of legally binding contracts. In social media, it's important to remember that while posting promises may seem binding, they often lack the intent and enforceability necessary for legal action.
