Votes are being counted in the election for a truncated government in Indian-controlled Kashmir
Foxconn says it is building the world's largest manufacturing facility for Nvidia's GB200
LG Energy Solution to supply EV batteries to Mercedes-Benz affiliate in North America
China's Pacific ally Kiribati criticises Beijing missile launch
Chagos islanders displaced for a US military base protest a deal on their future made without them
Oil edges lower after rallying to highest in over a month on Middle East war risk
China 'fully confident' of achieving 2024 economic goals, says official
Ex-NBA player, 'Survivor' contestant Scot Pollard makes contact with heart donor's family
Taylor Swift is back to watch Travis Kelce and the Chiefs with Eras Tour soon to resume
Cissy Houston, singer and mother of Whitney Houston, dies at 91
A New Zealand woman's attempt to sue her boyfriend for missing a flight has been rejected. The order laid out how this woman claimed her boyfriend broke a verbal agreement to drive her to the airport for her flight, which she ended up missing because he didn't show up.
The couple whose names weren't revealed, had been an item for six and a half years. The woman was jetting off to see a concert with some pals, and she'd arranged for her boyfriend to drop her at the airport, crash at her place while she was gone, and keep an eye on her two dogs.
She messaged him the day before with pickup instructions between 10 and 10:15 a.m., but he never arrived. As a result, she missed her flight and sought reimbursement for costs incurred, including rebooking for the next day, taking a shuttle, and boarding her dogs.
In her claim to the Disputes Tribunal, which handles small claims without lawyers or judges, the woman argued a verbal agreement existed. She said her boyfriend "enjoyed staying at her house" and had cared for her dogs before when they previously lived together but had since moved into separate homes.
The woman also sought the cost of a ferry ticket purchased for a planned holiday with her boyfriend in December to visit her sons. However, the tribunal dismissed her claim, stating the boyfriend's promise did not constitute an enforceable contract.
"For an agreement to be enforceable, there must be an intention to create a legally binding relationship," said referee Krysia Cowie in the March 7 order. According to NBC News, she explained that while friends may suffer financially from unkept promises, such arrangements are unlikely legally binding unless specifically demonstrated.
"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," Cowie stated.
She ruled the boyfriend's assurances were part of the "normal give and take in an intimate relationship" with no intent to be legally obligated. The order noted the man did not attend the hearing or respond to follow-up contact.
The ruling shows how tough it can be to get money back when casual plans between friends or partners fall through. Even if you lose cash because of a broken promise, the law might not help unless you can prove you meant to make a real contract. This case reminds us that everyday arrangements at home, no matter the cost, often don't count as legally binding deals.
