A woman took her boyfriend to the Disputes Tribunal after he failed to take her to the airport so she could attend a concert with friends.
Details of the claim were released on Friday, after the case was heard in March.
The boyfriend had verbally agreed to give her a ride to the airport and to stay at her house to look after her dogs, so she could go.
She messaged him the day before the flight, telling him he'd only have a 15-minute window to pick her up at about 10am. But he failed to show up, so she missed her flight.
The woman was so outraged she took her boyfriend's broken promises to the Disputes Tribunal. The man declined to attend the hearing.
She told the tribunal she had to pay for a new flight, a shuttle to the airport, and kennel fees for her two dogs.
During the couple's six-year relationship, she claimed the pair had lived together before, but were living apart at the time of the dispute.
The man "enjoyed" staying at her house because he'd looked after the dogs before, she said.
She said he entered a "verbal contract" with her by agreeing to the airport ride and dog-sitting.
However, the Disputes Tribunal referee overseeing the case, Krysia Cowie, said agreements are enforceable only if there's 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," Cowie added.
The pair didn't take steps intending to create a legally binding contract, she said.
The woman said she and the man were in a relationship when he'd agreed to the house-sitting and airport promises.
But Cowie said that didn't matter.
"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," she said.
The courts maintain that this type of loss is non-recoverable, Cowie explained, unless the promise was one they "intend to be bound by".
"In this case I find that the nature of the promises were exchanged as a normal give and take in an intimate relationship," Cowie said.
The promises made were not contracts, she stressed.
"It forms part of the everyday family and domestic relationship agreements that are not enforceable in the Disputes Tribunal."
Cowie dismissed the claim.
