1- Translate the following legal text into colloquial Farsi and make the Farsi translation regular and smooth. 2- Place the Farsi and English text with a line between each other, that is, the English text should be one line.  A space and then a Persian translation line and...
              4- Using legal language for Persian translation 5- Continue to the end of the text

                 .guar-
The effect of this section is to make a guarantee of a minor's contractual obligation enforceable against the guarantor even though the main contract- ual obligation is not enforceable against the minor. It ensures that the antee of an unenforceable minor's contract is as effective as if the minor had been an adult. Prior to this section coming into force section 1 of the Infants Relief Act, 1874 had the effect of invalidating guarantees on the basis that the main contract itself was 'absolutely void'. This means that the rule in Coutts & Co. v. Browne-Lecky (1947) is now repealed.
It is no longer necessary for a creditor to ensure that a separate indemnity is taken instead of a guarantee, although the distinction between them for all other purposes is apparently unaffected.
It is important to note that these changes in no way alter the circumstances in which a guarantor who has honoured the guarantee is entitled to recover against the minor. They are in the same position as any of the minor's creditors.
Section 3 of the 1987 Act alters the common law as to recovery of property from defaulting minors under unenforceable contracts. The disappointed creditor is now allowed even in the absence of fraud and where it is just and equitable' to obtain a court order for the return of property acquired by a minor or any property representing it'. It will be necessary to wait and see how this part of the new Act will affect the decision in Leslie v. Shiell (1914).
However, in case it should be thought that minors are free to do as they wish in regard to loans it must not be forgotten that if a minor misrepresents his age fraudulently and obtains money or goods, he renders himself liable to prosecution for 'dishonestly obtaining the property of another by deception' - an arrestable offence under the Theft Act, 1968, and punishable with imprisonment.
The decision in Ballett v. Mingay (1943) relating to wrongful interference to goods by a minor would appear to be unaffected by the new Act.(b) Valid contracts
These are of two types: (i) contracts for ‘necessaries' and (ii) contracts for the minor's benefit.
(i)
Contracts for 'necessaries' are contracts for goods suitable to the condi- tion in life of the minor and to his actual requirements at the time of sale and delivery' (Sale of Goods Act, 1979, s. 3). In any legal action, therefore, the courts will have to decide whether the goods in dispute are, as a matter of fact, necessaries for that particular minor having regard to his 'condition in life' (or status or standard of living).
The next question to be considered is whether, even though the goods may be 'necessaries' in themselves, the minor is in fact already plentifully sup- plied with the goods; for one must connect the word 'necessaries' with the minor's actual requirements' at the time of sale and at the time of delivery, where these times are different.
Examples of necessaries include such obvious things as food, clothing, medical attention, and educational books. Even services such as legal advice or hire of a car have been held to fall into this class. But in all cases it is for the court to decide as a matter of fact whether the goods supplied or services given are necessaries to that minor. Where a minor is married, the term will include necessaries for his wife and any children he may have.
Note: keep in mind for these cases that full age was 21 years before 1 January 1970 and 18 years thereafter.