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

          .Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861)
I was married to the daughter of X. To assist the married couple, .X promised to pay 7 £200 in consideration of T's father paying T £100. X, however, died before he had paid the £200, and in consequence T sued Atkinson, X's executor. Held: that T could not sue as no consideration had been given by T. Only T's father was entitled to sue.(e) Consideration must be possible
The law will not enforce a contract to do that which is quite outside human capability. Thus a promise to go to the centre of the Earth in consideration of the payment of £100, would be absurd and impossible, and brings into ques- tion whether the parties could genuinely have contemplated legal relations on that basis. However, a promise to do the impossible must be distin- guished from a promise which, although possible of performance when the contract was entered into, becomes impossible subsequently. This is dis- cussed under the doctrine of Frustration (see p. 159).(f) Consideration must not be past
This means that a benefit conferred in the past is not consideration for a present promise. In everyday life this may seem harsh, since most of us have received great benefits from others, e.g. parents, teachers, friends who have given a helping hand in moments of crisis. Apart from these moral obliga- tions of indebtedness, the rule of law concerning past consideration is prac- tical and sound.
Roscorla v. Thomas (1842)
T sold a horse to R for £30. After the actual sale, T stated that the horse was sound and free from vice. The horse proved, in fact, to be vicious, and R sued T. Held: that R could not recover on the warranty that the horse was not vicious, The sale had already taken place when the warranty as to the soundness and quiet temperament was given. The warranty did not, therefore, form part of the
consideration.
Re McArdle (1951)
The occupants carried out certain improvements and decorations to a house at a cost of £488. After the work was done, those beneficially interested in the house executed a document by which they promised, in consideration of the execution of the work, to pay £488. Held: that the consideration for the promise was past, as the work had been completed when the promise was made; the claim to recover £488 therefore failed.
There are two exceptions to this rule, as follows:
(i) Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. Section 27 of this Act lays down that, in addition to any consideration sufficient to support a simple contract, the consideration for a bill of exchange may be any antecedent debt or liability, provided that such debt or liability is not that of a stranger to the instrument.
(ii) Services Rendered. Where it is proved that services have been rendered at the express or implied request of the promisor, it has been held that this is sufficient consideration to support a subsequent promise to pay.