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.  Side.
         4- The use of legal language for Persian translation 5_ Continue to the end of the text

            .The first is that "consideration must be valuable but it need not be adequate". This means that provided something of value is given, in the absence of fraud or improper pressure, then it will be enough. In Thomas v. Thomas (1842) £1 each year towards the ground rent of a house was held to be enough to bind a promise to allow a woman to live in her late husband's house. It was not a market price, but it had value. His natural love and affection for her was not enough. It has no commercial value. But £1 would do.
Consideration, however, cannot exist in doing what you are already bound to do in a contract with the same other party (called existing contractual duty) although if you do more you could expect extra payment. In Stilk v. Myrick (1809) a sailor could not recover extra pay he was promised (the promise was not binding) for working on a voyage to cover for two deserters out of a crew of eleven. On the other hand, in Hartley v. Ponsonby (1857), on similar facts, the sailor did get his extra pay because the desertion was nineteen of thirty-six, leaving only four or five able seamen. He had done more than his existing contractual duty. He had "bought" the promise of extra pay.
Another aspect of this just rule concerns the part payment of debts. It is of no extra value to be paid less than you are owed. So it was that in D & C Builders v. Rees (1965) the builders' promise to accept £300 in full settlement of a debt of £482 was not binding on them, and they could successfully sue for the balance. It would not be the same, of course, if part payment were to be made early or in a different form (e.g. £300's worth of bricks) or with a chattel (£300 and a bucket) or by a third party (A owes B but B accepts less from C) - all with the agreement of the creditor because none of these is "straight" part payment. They all contain a little extra. If a little extra is paid the promise is binding but straight part payment will not discharge a debt. It has no value. Consideration must be valuable.
The second of these so-called rules is that "consideration must not be past". The rule sounds strange, but it is not difficult. Suppose I sell you a horse. After we have agreed the price and I have the cash and you have the horse you ask me about its temperament. I say that the horse is "sound and free from vice". This turns out to be less than accurate. You want to enforce my promise against me. You cannot. At the time I made my promise about the horse the deal was over. You can only sue me for a broken binding promise (part of a contract). This promise was not binding. At the time I made it the only possible consideration from you (the money for the horse) was already in the past used up. The rule is sometimes stated as "past consideration is no consideration", and the facts of the story happened in Roscorla v. Thomas (1842).
Similarly, in Re McArdle (1951) a man left his house to his widow in his will, for her life, and then to his children. There were improvements made to the house, for which the children subsequently promised to pay a contribution. This