> I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still

> I'm not a lawyer, but I thought most contracts had clauses that said that if one part of this contract is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract still holds. Yes, one sees that. Unfortunately, a contract that includes such statements, designed to avoid the consequences of unconscionable terms, are themselves unconscionable. My point is that you can't put language into a contract that contradicts contract law, and the idea of invalidating a contract based on unconscionable terms, terms no rational person would agree to, is part of contract law. Just speaking from experience, and IANAL.