True or false: void and voidable contracts; stranger to consideration; indirect loss

(i)False A void agreement is one not enforceable by law (s. 2(g)), and a void contract is one which ceases to be enforceable by law (s. 2(j)); a voidable contract is an agreement “enforceable by law at the option of one or more of the parties” but not at the option of the other or others (s. 2(i)). A void contract binds no one; a voidable contract binds both parties until the party entitled to avoid it does so. They are not the same thing.

(ii)False In India consideration may move from the promisee or any other person (s. 2(d)): there can be a stranger to the consideration, though not a stranger to the contract. In Chinnayya v. Ramayya, a daughter who had agreed in writing with her uncle to pay him an annuity, in return for her mother's gift of property, was held liable to the uncle, though the consideration moved from the mother. A stranger to the consideration can therefore sue, if he is a party to the contract.

(iii)False Section 73 allows compensation for two kinds of loss: loss that arises naturally, in the usual course of things, from the breach; and loss that the parties knew, when they contracted, was likely to result from it, which covers special damage arising from circumstances made known in advance (Hadley v. Baxendale). It then says that nothing is payable for remote or indirect loss. A loss the parties contemplated is recoverable precisely because it is not remote or indirect; indirect loss as such is never recoverable, so the statement, which makes indirect loss claimable when contemplated, is false.

The other reading. If "indirect loss" is used loosely to mean special loss flowing from special circumstances, the statement describes the contemplation rule correctly and would be marked true.