The Mystery of the

Sapphire Necklace: A
Legal Saga Unveiled
PRESENTED BY:
• MUHAMMAD UMAIR KHALIQ CHUGHTAI
• HABIBA ARSHAD
• FATIMA SIDDIQUE
• MUHAMMAD ASHIR KHAN
• MUHAMMAD NUMAN
PARTIES INVOLVED
A royal figure and the proud owner of the authentic sapphire necklace, whose offer to sell the
Mrs. Mary necklace triggers a series of events.

A wealthy businessman and collector of rare gems, who responds to Mrs. Mary’s offer with a
Mr. Henry counteroffer to purchase the necklace, setting the stage for negotiations.

Emily A minor and Mrs. Mary’s niece.

Mr. Lucas A producer who wanted the authentic sapphire necklace for his next film.

Ms. Grant A trustworthy and old jeweler of Berlin.

01
Facts of the Case
 Mrs. Mary's Decision to Sell the Necklace
Mrs. Mary, a prominent figure in Berlin’s high
society, decides to part ways with her
cherished family heirloom, the sapphire
necklace. She put it up for sale for $10,000 and
asked her niece, Emily, to find her a suitable
client and offered an incentive of 35%.
Offer Extended by Mrs. Mary
Mrs. Mary extends an offer to sell the necklace
to interested parties. This offer attracts the
attention of Mr. Henry, a renowned collector of
rare gems.
 Mr. Henry's Response with a Counteroffer
Mr. Henry, upon learning of Mrs. Mary's offer,
sees an opportunity to acquire the prized
possession. He responds with a counteroffer
for $8,000, to which Mrs. Mary asked for 7
days to decide. Meanwhile she was
approached by Mr. Lucas, brought in by
Emily, who agreed to accept for $10,000.
Sold to Mr. Lucas
Mrs. Mary sold the necklace to Mr. Lucas
while he had one to two drinks but was sober
enough to write it down and clearly state his
intention of forming legal relations. Mrs. Mary
never gave her niece the incentive she
promised.
 A visit by Mr. Henry
Mr. Henry visited Mrs. Mary’s palace after
seven days, but he wasn’t aware of her absence
at that time and neither he had ever seen her in
person because of royal protocol. Emily took
this as an opportunity as she was aware of the
contract made between Lucas and her aunt and
not getting the incentive she was promised of.
Involvement of Emily
Emily had the replica and kept it secret from
her aunt as she knew the sentimental value it
held for her aunt. Mr. Henry mistook Emily,
who was only 16 at that time for her aunt,
made a contract with her.
 A Contract between Emily and Mr.
Henry
Emily offered to sell the replica necklace for
$6000 to Mr. Henry, to which instantly agreed,
and the exchange was made. Emily invested
that money in a company and started earning
dividends.
Emily’s Fraud
Five years later, Mr. Henry to sell the necklace
to Ms. Grant, a jeweler, stated that it is a
replica made by her and not the original one.
Mr. Henry sued Mrs. Mary for fraud. Mrs.
Mary went to Ms. Grant where she got to
know the replicas was bought by Emily and
went into nervous shock and court.
 Unfolding of the Fiasco
Upon hearing about this case, Mr. Lucas
decided to get his necklace evaluated and
found out that the original cost of this one was
around $5000. He sued her for
fraudulent/misrepresentation and being in
mental incapacity to sign the contract.
Mrs. Mary’s side of the story
Mrs. Mary wasn’t aware of the actual market
value as it had been passed down by her
ancestors for generations. She pleaded her case
in court.
02
Relevant Cases
 Cases relevant to Mr. Henry v. Emily & Mr. Henry v. Mrs. Mary
Phillips v. Brooks
(1919)
This case discusses into only one party being
mistaken due to identity. Emily pretended to be
Mrs. Mary and Mr. Henry didn’t verify and
assumed based on her appearance that it was
Mrs. Mary. The exchange was also done face to
face.
Steinberg v. Scala (1923)
This case highlights the consequences of
minor girl entering a contract. Emily being a
minor and entered a contract with Mr. Henry,
him being unaware about this until recently.
Dimmock v. Hallet (1866)
It was half truth and misrepresentation. The
information provided was that it is a sapphire
necklace but no statement about it being a
replica.
Routledge v. Grant(1828)
This case examines revocation of an offer. Mrs.
Mary sold the necklace to someone else before
seven days. She revoke the offer before it is
accepted.
 Cases relevant to Mr. Lucas v. Mrs. Mary
Mathews v. Baxter (1873)
Emphasizes the importance of having a written
agreement of having intentions to form legal
relations while being drunk (mental incapacity).
He was still satisfied with his purchase after
being sober. The reference to this case, he
couldn’t go back on his decision.
Leaf v. International
Galleries (1950)
Reflects on when both parties make the same
mistake. Mrs. Mary and Mr. Lucas both were
unaware of the actual market value of the
sapphire necklace while selling and buying,
respectively. Also Mr. Lucas sued her for this
later five years. The mistake is fundamental,
unintentional and there is law of limitation.
 Cases relevant to Emily v. Mrs. Mary

Jose Phillip Mamphilly v.

Premier Automobile Limited
This highlights the compensation provided for
mental distress caused due defective products.
Emily owed duty of care towards her aunt for
hurting her sentiments for making a duplicate of
her sapphire necklace. Mrs. Mary upon finding
out had a nervous shock.
Simpkins v. Pays (1955)
Reflects on nature of agreement (mal
intention). Here Mrs. Mary promised Emily
35% incentive of getting her a buyer for
her necklace to which she later refused. The
contract was valid despite the environment
as mentioned in the reference case.
Court’s Decision
Mr. Lucas v. Mrs. Mary

Verdict:
1. Even though Lucas claims mental incapacity, the
court said he was able to write an agreement and sign
it, and even if was drunk, he was satisfied with the
purchase after being sober.

2. Court stated that even though it was a common

mistake of evaluation between the two parties, a
significant period of time had passed since the
exchange (5 years) hence it was too late for the
contract to be void and it was failure of Lucas to
authenticate the sapphire earlier.

Hence parties would keep their original position.

Henry v. Mrs. Mary & Emily

Verdict:
Even though there was a misrepresentation due to half-
truth relating to the replica of the sapphire the court
took the defendants side saying:

1. It was a unilateral mistake on behalf of Henry as

he did not verify the identity completely.
2. Under the same assumption he had thought that
Emily was an adult (Mary was 22 yrs old), Henry
should have known better.

So the court stated that parties would keep their

current position.
Emily v. Mrs. Mary

Verdict:

The court sided with the defendant (Emily) in this case

because

1. Mary did not pay the share of money both parties

had agreed upon.
2. Her failure to hand over the promised money led
to Emily getting a replica made which indirectly made
it her own fault for the nervous shock.

Hence Emily would get the amount Marry owed to her

Mrs. Mary v. Emily

Verdict:

The court sided with the defendant (Mrs. Mary) in this

case because

1. Emily knew about the sentimental value the

necklace held for her aunt yet still went behind her
back and made a replica.
2. Emily was aware that actions would hurt her aunt.

Hence Emily owed duty of care towards Mrs. Mary.

03
Conclusion
1. Breached Contract: Breach of contract between Emily and Mary as
Mary didn’t give 35% to Emily as promised. No breach of contract
between Lucas and Mary as it was a common mistake and law of
limitation is applied. Unilateral mistake between Emily and Mr Henry
as Emily pretended to be someone else.

2. Damages Awarded: The court awarded damages to Emily of her

share of 35%. Duty of care awarded to Marry.

2. Suggestion: Would’ve been better if Lucas had sued earlier.

Would’ve been better if Mr Henry had checked properly and done
proper investigation and confirmation before doing a contract with
Emily thinking she was Mrs Mary
Ensuring Justice and Fairness
Throughout the legal proceedings, the court strived to ensure justice and fairness for all parties involved,
reflecting the integrity of legal system.

Lessons Learned
The case serves as a reminder of the importance of diligence, transparency, and ethical conduct in
contractual negotiations, highlighting the need for integrity in legal transactions.

Setting Precedent
The resolution of this case sets a precedent for future contractual disputes, reaffirming the principles of
justice and accountability within legal framework.
Thank You!
CREDITS: This presentation template was created by Slidesgo, and
includes icons by Flaticon and infographics & images by Freepik