> Furthermore, putting terms in a contract that are blatantly contrary to prevailing law should itself be illegal with its own penalties apart from enforcement of the contract.
I can't help but scoff every time I read in a rental contract that even if some part of the contract is nullified due to not being legal, the rest of it still applies. It always makes me wonder which part of it they thought might not be enforceable, although likely they probably all include since it costs them nothing to do so.
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.
Normally I might agree with you, but after dealing with this landlord for six months...I don't think that a charitable interpretation is warranted. I won't bother going into details, but there have been no violations on my part, and I can't say the same for them.
I can't help but scoff every time I read in a rental contract that even if some part of the contract is nullified due to not being legal, the rest of it still applies. It always makes me wonder which part of it they thought might not be enforceable, although likely they probably all include since it costs them nothing to do so.