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

                 .In determining the reasonableness of an agreement in restraint of trade, the court has regard to the nature of the employer's business and also the capacity in which the employee serves. A wider restriction may be permis- sible in relation to an employee occupying a managerial position than would be upheld in the case of a subordinate employee. Moreover, some confiden- tial relationship must subsist between employer and employee, e.g. the con- fidential relationship which exists between a solicitor and his managing clerk. But not all such relationships are held to be confidential in this sense, and restrictive agreements between the following classes of person have been held unreasonable and void: a newspaper proprietor and a reporter; a clothing company and a canvasser; a firm of motor-car dealers and a motor- salesman; an estate agent and a clerk.
Attwood v. Lamont (1920)
A, a tailor and draper at Kidderminster, employed L under a contract containing a restriction that L would not, on leaving his employment, carry on a business as a tailor within ten miles of Kidderminster. Held: that the restriction was merely to prevent L from using his skill in competition with A and the agreement was void.
Fitch v. Dewes (1921)
D, a solicitor at Tamworth, employed F as managing clerk. A covenant in a ser- vice agreement contained a clause restraining F, on leaving D's employment, from practising as a solicitor within seven miles of Tamworth. Held: that the covenant was good. F had become acquainted with the solicitor's clients and their business, and therefore could be restrained from using that knowledge to the detriment of D. Accordingly a lifelong restriction was not too wide.
M & S Drapers v. Reynolds (1956)
A collector-salesman, R, working for a firm of credit drapers, covenanted that he would not for five years after leaving his employment canvass orders from any person on the firm's list of customers during the three years immediately preceding the determination of his employment. R sold goods in breach of the covenant and was sued by plaintiffs. Held: that the restraint for five years in R's position was too long and was an unreasonable restraint of trade.
The principle was reaffirmed in Walson v. Prager and Anor (1991) where an agreement between a boxer and his manager/promoter containing an option to extend the original term of three years for a further three years was held to be an unreasonable restraint of trade.
(iii) The Competition Act, 1998 has repealed the Restrictive Trade Practices Legislation (see p. 55) and the provision on anti-competitive practices in the Competition Act 1980.
Part 1 of the Act provides for a new set of competition rules modelled on the provision in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty of Rome 1957. These are known as Chapter I and II prohibition.