This question is about severability in a contract. Some severability clauses contain a second part stating that if limiting a term would make it enforceable, then the term should be limited as so. Is this valid and does it work? Is an example where this works would be:
-A contract has a severability clause “if limiting an unenforceable term would make it enforceable, the term shall be construed as so limited”
-The contract has a term that charges $50 for some administrative fee
-An applicable law exists that says $20 at most can be charged for administrative fees
-The severability clause makes it so that $20 can be charged, without it the whole fee would be waived
Would the whole fee be waived if the severability clause was worded as “if a term is found to be unenforceable, the remainder shall remain in affect”? Here is an example of one I found in a real contract
If any part or parts of this Lease shall be held unenforceable for any reason, the remainder of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect. If any provision of this Lease is deemed invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, and if limiting such provision would make the provision valid, then such provision shall be deemed to be construed as so limited.
Also what’s the difference between unenforceable, illegal and an invalid term? Is this redundant?
TL;DR what’s the difference between the clauses “if a term is found to be unenforceable, the remainder will remain in affect” and “if limiting an unenforceable term would make it enforceable, the term shall be construed as so limited”. Could you have the second by itself, or does it require the first?