2 ms·

Yes... And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions.

by shakna 6y ago

nl 6y ago
> And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions. Are you claiming that including language similar to "If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms" will make the contract unenforceable? What jurisdictions? Do you have any examples? I've never heard of this and I've spoke to lawyers about it previously, and some quick searching terms up nothing like this. I'd be pretty surprised if this claim is true.
- shakna 6y ago
  In Australia it falls under "terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract." and "terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract" which contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms regime under the Australian Consumer Law.
  - nl 6y ago
    I'm in Australia, and this is categorically not true. This term doesn't allow Google to vary the contract. Instead it says if a court finds a specific term is unenforceable that doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract. Here's guidance from the Australian government clausebank, which is a shared resource for common contract clauses in Australia: "This clause provides that any illegal or otherwise unenforceable contract terms are removed from the Contract, with the remainder of the Contract remaining valid and enforceable between the parties.... While use of this clause is optional, it is common for contracts to include a clause of this type." https://www.finance.gov.au/government/procurement/clausebank/severability-invalid-clauses https://www.finance.gov.au/government/procurement/clausebank...
unishark 6y ago
That statement, called a "severability clause", is there precisely because otherwise some other unenforceable provision would void the entire contract anyway. Judges can decide to just throw out your contract in a dispute, rather than pare it down for you. In fact they probably would do that as a rule.

Yes... And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions.

by shakna 6y ago

Yes... And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions.

nl 6y ago

> And that statement can be used to revoke the entire contract in certain jurisdictions. Are you claiming that including language similar to "If it turns out that a particular term is not valid or enforceable, this will not affect any other terms" will make the contract unenforceable? What jurisdictions? Do you have any examples? I've never heard of this and I've spoke to lawyers about it previously, and some quick searching terms up nothing like this. I'd be pretty surprised if this claim is true.

shakna 6y ago
In Australia it falls under "terms that enable one party (but not another) to vary the terms of the contract." and "terms that enable one party (but not another) to avoid or limit their obligations under the contract" which contravenes the Unfair Contract Terms regime under the Australian Consumer Law.
- nl 6y ago
  I'm in Australia, and this is categorically not true. This term doesn't allow Google to vary the contract. Instead it says if a court finds a specific term is unenforceable that doesn't invalidate the rest of the contract. Here's guidance from the Australian government clausebank, which is a shared resource for common contract clauses in Australia: "This clause provides that any illegal or otherwise unenforceable contract terms are removed from the Contract, with the remainder of the Contract remaining valid and enforceable between the parties.... While use of this clause is optional, it is common for contracts to include a clause of this type." https://www.finance.gov.au/government/procurement/clausebank/severability-invalid-clauses https://www.finance.gov.au/government/procurement/clausebank...

unishark 6y ago

That statement, called a "severability clause", is there precisely because otherwise some other unenforceable provision would void the entire contract anyway. Judges can decide to just throw out your contract in a dispute, rather than pare it down for you. In fact they probably would do that as a rule.