Kate is 80 years old and frail. Her eyesight is poor. She is forgetful and easily confused. She wished to sell her jewellery in order to finance her stay in a home for the elderly.

She telephoned Sutherland & More, a well-respected firm of jewellers, and told them that she had some valuable jewellery to sell. Because she is an old and valued customer, Sutherland & More offered to send a representative of the firm to see her, to value the jewellery. Kate's daughter, Millie, overheard the conversation. Millie told her boyfriend, Larry, what she had heard. Larry called on Kate and pretended to be from Sutherland & More. He persuaded Kate to hand over her jewellery in return for a cheque for 6,000. The true value of the jewellery is 26,000. Larry also asked Kate to sign a document that he described as a bill of sale for the jewellery. In fact, it was a document agreeing to convey the lease of Kate's house to Millie. Larry's cheque for the jewellery has now been dishonoured. He has sold the jewellery to Ted. Millie is seeking possession of what she now describes as 'her house'. a) Advise Kate whether the contract with Larry is: i) Void, or ii) Voidable b) What are the prospects of Kate succeeding in recovering the jewellery from Larry or to anyone to whom he may have sold the jewellery? c) Is the document signed by Kate effective to transfer ownership of the lease of the house to Millie?