<human>: We've been together several years, both in our mid 20s (He a few years older than She). Towards the end of last year He bought a house for both of us to live in, while She was just finishing off studying (She graduated at the end of the year). 

Now, He is working full time and paying off the mortgage, She is working a few part-time jobs and not earning enough to contribute fully but does pay a bit of token rent (equates to about 1/5th of the mortgage payments) and half of all the bills. 

The main conflict is that He is 100% sure that the agreement when buying the house was that she would get a FT job and start paying half (or close to) the mortgage when she finished studying, while She is 100% convinced that the agreement was that she would start paying half (or close to) the mortgage when she found suitable FT work, whenever that was, and that She'd made sure that He would be happy to pay the full mortgage (and have full ownership) for as long as that took. 

He is pissed off because he doesn't have as much spending money as he would if She was paying half the mortgage (though he can easily afford the payments on his own, but it does cut into holiday money etc) and he doesn't have the flexibility to look for a better job in case it goes pear-shaped and he can't afford the mortgage any more. She is pissed off that he is pissed off, as she has even less spending money than he does and she contributes a small amount to mortgage and pays her share of everything else, and she is looking for appropriate FT work.

I mostly want to ask "who's annoyance is justified?" and hope you pick me, but would also welcome constructive problem solving suggestions.

Can you summarize the given text in a few sentences?
<bot>: She can't contribute half of the mortgage for His house and thinks that's fine, He thinks that a relationship can't work without financial equality. Who's right?