A slightly more charitable interpretation would be that they are trying to use a standard contract with terms which are both reasonable and enforceable in most

A slightly more charitable interpretation would be that they are trying to use a standard contract with terms which are both reasonable and enforceable in most contexts, while allowing for the fact that the rules about precisely what is or is not legal in a contract can vary from one jurisdiction to another and may be subject to a certain amount of interpretation. Also, something which was legal at the time the contract was signed might be changed to be illegal later. Either way, they don't want the entire contract to be nullified on the basis of one invalid term. IMHO it mostly works out in your favor. If any of your obligations toward them are deemed unenforceable they are still bound to uphold the rest of the contract. The reverse could also apply, of course, but as the smaller and "less sophisticated" party to the contract your obligations are more likely to be nullified by local consumer protection rules than theirs.