[lambertsimnel]

But if laws can override contracts (which presumably they can), then contracts can appear to establish permissions/restrictions that are illegal. At least one contract I've signed includes something about the rest being enforceable if any part of it isn't enforceable. Perhaps that helps to contain actual mistakes, but I assume employers use it to persuade employees that they're bound by illegal non-compete clauses, for example.

[vintermann]

> At least one contract I've signed includes something about the rest being enforceable if any part of it isn't enforceable.

Which is funny, because if it worked like that - that any unenforceable demand in it made the whole thing invalid - then presumably the clause asserting the opposite would also be invalid.

[RetroTechie]

No it means that if parts of a contract are found to be unlawful or unenforceable, the rest of the contract still holds.

Edit: in other words, you're not legally bound to unlawful parts of a contract.

[lambertsimnel]

This is my understanding, too. Sorry if that wasn't clear in my earlier comment.

However, I also believe that unenforceable parts of a contract have no effect, except in the minds of the parties to that contract. My suspicion is that contracts are sometimes drafted with this in mind.