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

                 .The Moorcock (1889)
Appellants agreed with the respondent to use the appellants' jetty and wharf to load and store cargo from the Moorcock. The river bed was owned by a third party. It was beyond the appellants' control and they had taken no steps to ascer- tain whether it was safe for the ship to lie, as was inevitable at low water on each tide. The ship grounded and suffered damage because of the uneven river bed. Held: that appellants were liable as the jetty could not have been used without the Moorcock grounding. In these circumstances the appellants were deemed to
have impliedly represented that they had taken reasonable care to ascertain that the river bed adjoining the jetty was in such a condition as not to cause damage to the vessel. 'What the law desires to effect by the implication is to give such busi- ness efficacy to the transaction as must have been intended at all events by both parties who are businessmen.'
(ii) Custom. Terms may be implied by custom of a locality or a particular trade. The custom, or usage as it is sometimes called to distinguish it from the general custom of the realm, must be certain, reasonable, and well-known (notorious) to all affected by it, and must not be contrary to any statute.
(iii) Sale of Goods Act, 1979. Sections 12-15 of this Act imply certain terms into contracts for the sale of goods which are for the protection of the buyer. For example, section 13 makes it an implied condition that goods shall correspond with the description of them; section 14 provides that goods shall be of a satisfactory quality, and section 15 lays down that in a sale by sample, the bulk shall correspond with the sample. These sec- tions were considered in Harlingdon and Leinster Enterprises Ltd. v. Christopher Hull Fine Art Ltd. (1990) where the Court of Appeal held that the sale of a forged painting did not prevent it from being of mer- chantable quality. The Sale of Goods (Amendment) Act, 1995 implies further contractual terms which assist the buyer when sales are made from bulk. Amending Section 16, a new rule in Section 18 expedites the passing of property to the buyer when sales are made from bulk. New Sections 20A and 20B also provide for a buyer, in certain circumstances, to become a part-owner of bulk goods.Exemption clauses
The basic rule regarding conditions contained in an offer is that the offeror can attach any conditions he or she pleases and any terms of acceptance he or she chooses. Conditions may be made orally or in writing. In the latter event the writing is generally stated on the face of the document itself (e.g. hire- purchase agreements). But, in some instances (e.g. railway tickets) an author- ity may impose conditions too numerous to be included on these small documents. Usually railway tickets bear on the face the words 'For condi- tions, see over'. On the reverse side of the ticket may be printed: 'Issued sub- ject to the conditions and regulations contained in the Board's publications and notices.' It follows that offerees should read such publications and notices, but only very few ever do. Such conditions are binding.
In recent years commercial companies and public authorities have imposed similar conditions in their contracts exempting or excluding themselves from liability for breaches of contract or from liability for torts, particularly negli- gence, arising during the contract. The rules applicable in this situation may be
summarized thus:
(a) The offeror must do all that is reasonably necessary to bring the condi- tions to the notice of the offeree. This is a question of fact in each case (Thornton v. Shoe Lane Parking Ltd., 1971).
(b) The conditions must be brought to the notice of the offeree either before or contemporaneously with the making of the contract (Olley v. Marlborough Court, Ltd., 1949).
(c) An exemption clause printed on a receipt after the contract is not valid (Chapelton v. Barry U.D.C., 1940).