'Purchasers granted to Gamestation a non-transferable, perpetual option "to claim, for now and forever more, your immortal soul". Such purchasers agreed to surrender said soul within 5 business days of written notification by Gamestation "or one of its authorised minions"; and while such notice could be delivered by way of notice through "6 (six) foot high letters of fire", purchasers agreed that Gamestation had no liability for damages caused by that act. At the end of the paragraph, purchasers were told that they could click on a link to nullify the provision (and, upon doing so, were rewarded for their vigilance with a voucher code that had a value of ₤5.00).'
Most contracts include a severability clause, which basically says that if any part is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract continues to apply anyway.
And that is the legal standard anyway. A judge is too enforce as much as possible of the original contract, even if it is found to be illegal. Judges are encouraged to make the minimum possible adjustments to make the contract legal.
This makes what seems to be common practice today, signing contracts you think to be illegal because they "can't be enforced" lunacy.
Comments
Somewhat releveant: http://www.mcmillan.ca/93388
'Purchasers granted to Gamestation a non-transferable, perpetual option "to claim, for now and forever more, your immortal soul". Such purchasers agreed to surrender said soul within 5 business days of written notification by Gamestation "or one of its authorised minions"; and while such notice could be delivered by way of notice through "6 (six) foot high letters of fire", purchasers agreed that Gamestation had no liability for damages caused by that act. At the end of the paragraph, purchasers were told that they could click on a link to nullify the provision (and, upon doing so, were rewarded for their vigilance with a voucher code that had a value of ₤5.00).'
Nice way to void a contract.
Most contracts include a severability clause, which basically says that if any part is found to be invalid, the rest of the contract continues to apply anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severability
And that is the legal standard anyway. A judge is too enforce as much as possible of the original contract, even if it is found to be illegal. Judges are encouraged to make the minimum possible adjustments to make the contract legal.
This makes what seems to be common practice today, signing contracts you think to be illegal because they "can't be enforced" lunacy.