1_ Translate the following legal text into colloquial Farsi 2_ Place the Persian and English text side by side in the table 3_ From the beginning to the end of the text, there should be an English sentence on the left side and a Persian sentence on the right side.
       4- Using legal language for Persian translation

          .2. Agreement
In the normal case, a contract results from an agreement between the partics to it; and much of the law of contract is concerned with the process of reaching agreement, and with the contents of the agreement when reached. Nevertheless, the description of a contract as an agreement is subject to a number of important qualifications.
The first of these is that the law, generally speaking, applies an objective test of agreement. If one party. A. so conducts himself as to induce the other, B. reasonably to believe that A is assenting to certain terms proposed by B, then A will generally be held so to have assented, whatever his actual state of mind may have been. The law adopts this attitude in the interests of convenience: a person to whom a contractual proposal is made might be seriously prejudiced if he could not take it at its face value. The principle is, however, one of convenience only, so that it will not be applied where, on balance, the inconvenience to A of applying the objective test exceeds the inconvenience to B of allowing A to rely on his actual intention.
The second qualification is that, even where agreement determines the existence of a contract, it does not necessarily determine all the contents or scope of a contract. These matters are often determined by so-called "implied terms". These may be divided into terns implied in fact and terms implied in law. Only terms implied in fact are truly based on the intention of the parties. Terms implied in law are duties prima facie imposed by law; and with respect to them, the intention of the partics is relevant only insofar as it may be open to the partics to exclude the implied terms by express contrary agreement.
Thirdly, there is a group of cases which is commonly discussed under the general heading of contract, in which the obligation does not truly arise out of an agreement by two parties, but rather out of a promise made by one of them. This would be the position where a person made a gratuitous promise in such a form that it was legally binding: for example. in a deed under seal. In such a case, the promisee would at most "agree" by accepting the gift or the promise to make it. But even this is not necessary: a promise of this kind can bind even before it is communicated to the promisce.
Fourthly, the idea that contract depends on agreement must be qualified in cases in which one party is in a very much stronger bargaining position than the other, so that the former can in a sense impose his terms on the latter. The growing use of standard form contracts under which a party is often bound by many terms of which he is not in fact aware, is a particularly common illustration of this situation. In such cases the weaker party may agree reluctantly, or he may take his chance of whatever terms are contained in the standard form, or he may not in truth have "agreed" at all.