Anand promises, for no consideration, to give to Parveen Rs.1000, but fails to do so. Under the Indian…

The bare promise is unsupported by consideration, and no exception is established by the facts. It is therefore void and cannot be enforced as a contract.

Why not "No, this is a voidable agreement."? The conclusion that enforcement is unavailable is paired with the wrong classification. Lack of consideration in this bare promise makes the agreement void, rather than giving one party an election to avoid an otherwise binding contract. Voidability concerns a different kind of defect and legal consequence.

Why not "Yes, this is a valid agreement."? A promise to give money does not become an enforceable contract solely because it was made. Consideration or a recognised statutory exception is required, and neither is established here. The failure to perform the gift promise therefore does not create the contractual liability assumed by this option.

Why not "None of the following answers: No, this is a voidable agreement.; Yes, this is a valid agreement.; No, this is a void agreement."? The alternatives include the accurate statement that the gratuitous agreement is void and unenforceable on these facts. Rejecting every proposed answer would overlook that applicable rule. No circumstance is stated that would bring the promise within an exception or require a different legal classification.