News From New Zealand: Whan a Man Disappoints a Woman, Is It Breach?

Six years into their relationship, which included periods of co-habitation, a man promised to take his girlfriend to the airport and look after her dogs while she was on holiday.  When the day of travel arrived, he didn't show or return her calls.  She missed her flight, rescheduled, and paid to put her dogs in a kennel. 

Moreover, the two had planned to go on holiday together in December, 2023.  The woman had bought a ferry ticket for the man, but again, he had stopped taking her calls, and she was stuck with a presumably non-refundable ticket.

The dogs and the ferry ride complicate matters, of course, but airport rides are high-stakes promises. When I lived in Valparaiso, Indiana, airport rides could be at least two hours round trip (Midway) or three or more (O'Hare). One was lucky to have one friend willing to take you to the airport.  My beloved colleague, Rebecca Huss (right), treated airport driving as the highest level of friendship.  I can easily imagine that Rebecca would have treated a six-year relationship as a probationary period during which she still was not obligated to driver her partner to the airport.  That would be level-jumping. Once, when we thought our law school was going to relocate to Tennessee (long story), a bunch of us went down for a publicity shoot. I volunteered to use my car to ferry myself and some colleagues to O'Hare.  When Rebecca said that she would come with me, I said, "Okay, but now you owe me a ride to the airport!"  I did that because I knew that Rebecca would get steamed and shout "I'M NOT DRIVING YOU TO THE AIRPORT!!!" She didn't disappoint.

In the case at issue, the woman, identified as CL, decided to sue the man, identified as HG, for breach of contract in New Zealand's Disputes Tribunal.  In a charmingly poorly-written order, perfect for the first day of teaching, the tribunal found that CL had not stated a claim for breach of contract.  A good thing too, because had the tribunal found otherwise, it's not clear that anyone would have been able to reach HG to get him to pay up.  He was invited to participate in a hearing by telephone, but "HG sent an email that he would not attend the hearing by answering his phone." Subsequent calls from the tribunal went unanswered.  This man is one unfriendly ghost.

The tribunal found that there was no contract here because the parties never intended to be legally bound.  "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."

That strikes me as all there is to say, at least with respect to HG's promise to take CL to the airport. Airport rides are an act of Grace.

The order does not separately address the ferry ticket, and there might be a viable claim of promissory estoppel there.  The tribunal's neglect of that issue may be a product of a pleading failure.  CL might not have known of the doctrine. In the alternative, it may be that New Zealand law does not award damages for breach of a social promise, regardless of reliance.  

Input on that last point would be welcome.