Is it necessary to state in a contract that if one part is found unenforceable, the rest still is?
<p>I've seen in some contracts clauses stating something like</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If a term or condition is found to be unenforceable, the rest of the contract still remains in affect.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Is this necessary? Unless specified otherwise, if part of the contract is found unenforceable then would the entire contract be nullified?</p>

<p>For example if a contract states "employees must remain in the building when there is a fire" and it is found this part of unenforceable, would this be grounds for terminating the employee (anyways) because that means the entire employment contract was invalid? </p>

<p>Absolutely it is.</p>

<p>If a contract contains void provisions then, in general, the contract itself is void for uncertainty. A void contract <em>never existed</em> so you couldn't use this to terminate a contract because there never was a contract.</p>

<p>Contracts of employment are typically heavily regulated and the regulations may tell you to deal with void provisions in a different way. However, for common law contracts a void provision can sink the whole thing.</p>

<p>It is necessary for any contract that is complex, interstate, or not drafted by an attorney. A <em>severability</em> or <em>savings clause</em> is critical in those situations, because without it, a contract that has a clause found to be either unenforceable by law, or unenforceable because it is one sided, unfair, unethical or illegal. In those cases, without a savings clause, you will find more often than not, that in times of dispute the entire contract can be found invalid. If you have that clause (the savings clause) you will be able to argue that it was foreseen by the parties that in the event some cause is found to be illegal, unjust, or unenforceable for whatever reason, that the remainder is saved. It protects both parties.</p>

contract-law