What is the ruling on a divorce oath sworn by the husband that he would pay for his friend's phone, but he did not pay because the friend did not buy the phone?

It appears that the husband is not bound by a divorce and has not broken his oath, because the reason for his oath was his eagerness to bear the cost of the phone for his friend if it were purchased, and not the intention to pay the price in every circumstance. The context of his oath benefits him. Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that intention and reason affect the oath, whether in specification or generalization. However, if he intended to pay the price in every circumstance (which is unlikely), then divorce would occur due to the non-occurrence of the condition, and this is the view of the majority of scholars. Meanwhile, Ibn Taymiyyah holds that an expiation for an oath (kaffarat yamin) is required if he did not intend divorce.