Agreements in Restraint of Legal Proceedings and Stifling Prosecution are Void
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreements that restrain legal proceedings or stifle prosecution are considered void. Let's understand why these agreements are not enforceable.

Agreement in Restraint of Legal Proceedings:
---------------------------------------------------------
An agreement in restraint of legal proceedings refers to an agreement where one party agrees not to enforce his legal rights or not to approach the court for redressal of grievances. Such agreements are against public policy as they restrict the access to justice and prevent individuals from seeking legal remedies. Therefore, they are void and unenforceable.

Agreement to Stifle Prosecution:
----------------------------------------
An agreement to stifle prosecution is an agreement where one party agrees not to prosecute or report an offense committed by another party. Similarly, this kind of agreement is also void as it goes against public policy. It is essential to uphold the law and ensure that offenses are reported and prosecuted. Hence, any agreement that stifles prosecution undermines the legal system and is considered invalid.

Outgoing Partner Agreement to Restrict Business:
--------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, an agreement by an outgoing partner with his partners not to carry on any business within a specified period or within specified local limits is valid and enforceable. This agreement is generally made to protect the interests of the continuing partners and to prevent unfair competition. It is a legitimate way to ensure a smooth transition and safeguard the business interests of the remaining partners.

Contingent Contracts:
---------------------------
Contingent contracts are agreements in which the performance of the contract depends on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a specific event. These contracts are valid and enforceable as long as the contingent event is not against public policy or illegal. If the event specified in the contract does not occur, the contract becomes void.

In conclusion, agreements in restraint of legal proceedings and stifling prosecution are void as they go against public policy. However, an agreement by an outgoing partner to restrict business is valid and enforceable, as well as contingent contracts, provided they are not against public policy or illegal.

Agreements that are void:
- Agreement in restraint of legal proceedings: This agreement restricts a party from initiating legal action or proceeding against another party. Such agreements are considered void as they go against public policy and the right to access justice.
- Agreement to stifle prosecution: This agreement aims to prevent the prosecution of a criminal offense. It is also void as it obstructs the course of justice and allows the guilty to avoid punishment.
Agreements that are valid:
- Agreement by an outgoing partner with his partners not to carry on any business within a specified period or within specified local limits: This agreement is valid as long as it is reasonable in terms of duration and geographical limits. It is a common practice to prevent the outgoing partner from competing with the partnership immediately after leaving.
- Contingent Contracts: These contracts are based on the occurrence of a future uncertain event. They are valid as long as the event is possible and not against the law. The parties involved have to fulfill their obligations once the event occurs.
Therefore, the correct answer is A: 1 & 2 as agreements in restraint of legal proceedings and to stifle prosecution are void.