Facts: Goodtyre is a tyre manufacturer who agreed with their dealer to not sell the tyres below a recommended retail price (RRP). As part of the agreement, Goodtyre also required their dealers to gain the same agreement with their retailers, who in this instance was Bestmotors. The agreement held that if tyres were sold below the RRP. they would be required to pay ` 500 per tyre in damage to Goodtyre. This was agreed between the dealer and Bestmotors, which effectively made Goodtyre a third-party to that agreement. Something after this Bestmotor sold the tyres below the agreed price and Goodtyre sued for damages and an injunction to prevent them from continuing as this activity. Bestmotor is arguing that Goodtyre could not enforce the contract as it was not part of the contract between the dealer and the Bestmotor. The court decided that Goodtyre had no right to access damages. Which of the following are correct reasons? (AILET 2019) I. Goodtyre could not claim for damages as only a party to a contract can claim damages under it. II. Goodtyre had not given any consideration to Bestmotors and therefore there could be no binding contract between the parties. III. Goodtyre was not listed as an agent within the contract and could therefore not be included as a valid third-party who had right to claim on the contract.

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.