• 

Severance Vs Invalidity.

Severance vs Invalidity 

The doctrines of Severance and Invalidity are central to contract law and determine whether a defective provision affects the entire agreement or can be removed while preserving the rest.

1. Concept Overview

Severance

Severance is a legal doctrine that allows a court to remove or “sever” an unlawful, void, or unenforceable part of a contract, while enforcing the remainder, provided the rest of the contract can stand independently.

Invalidity

Invalidity refers to a situation where a contract (or a substantial part of it) is void, voidable, or unenforceable, such that the agreement cannot be enforced in whole or in part.

2. Key Distinction

3. Legal Tests for Severance

Courts apply different tests to determine whether severance is possible:

1. Blue Pencil Test
   • Can the offending words be removed without altering the meaning of the contract?
2. Substantial Severability Test
   • Does the remaining contract retain its commercial purpose?
3. Public Policy Consideration
   • Courts avoid rewriting contracts but may sever clauses to uphold lawful agreements.

4. Key Case Laws on Severance vs Invalidity

(i) Nordenfelt v. Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co. Ltd (1894)

• Principle: Courts may sever unreasonable parts of restraint clauses if the remainder is reasonable.
• Relevance: Classic application of severance in restraint of trade.

(ii) Attwood v. Lamont (1920)

• Principle: Where a clause is too wide and cannot be neatly severed, the entire clause is invalid.
• Relevance: Demonstrates limits of severance; leads to invalidity.

(iii) Beckett Investment Management Group Ltd v. Hall (2007)

• Principle: Modern application of the blue pencil test; courts can sever parts of restrictive covenants if the remainder is workable.
• Relevance: Shows evolution toward a more flexible approach to severance.

(iv) Tillman v. Egon Zehnder Ltd (2019)

• Principle: Supreme Court allowed severance of offending words in a restraint clause while enforcing the rest.
• Relevance: Clarifies modern approach: severance is allowed if it does not require rewriting the contract.

(v) Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v. Harper’s Garage (Stourport) Ltd (1968)

• Principle: Entire agreement may be invalid if restraint of trade is unreasonable and cannot be severed.
• Relevance: Illustrates when invalidity prevails over severance.

(vi) Carney v. Herbert (1985)

• Principle: If illegal parts are central to the contract, the entire contract becomes void.
• Relevance: Demonstrates total invalidity due to inseparability.

(vii) Shin Satellite Public Co Ltd v. Jain Studios Ltd (2006)

• Jurisdiction: India
• Principle: Courts may sever invalid parts of arbitration agreements if the rest remains enforceable.
• Relevance: Indian application of severance doctrine.

5. When Courts Apply Severance

Courts are more likely to apply severance when:

• The illegal portion is minor or incidental
• The contract remains workable after removal
• The parties’ main intention can still be fulfilled
• The clause can be removed without rewriting the contract

6. When Courts Declare Invalidity

Courts prefer invalidity when:

• The illegal provision is central to the agreement
• The contract becomes unworkable without the clause
• Severance would require rewriting or modifying the contract
• The agreement violates public policy or statutory law

7. Practical Implications

(i) Drafting Contracts

• Include severability clauses to preserve enforceability
• Avoid overly broad or illegal provisions

(ii) Litigation Strategy

• Parties may argue for:
  • Severance to save the contract
  • Invalidity to avoid obligations

(iii) Arbitration Context

• Severability ensures arbitration clauses survive even if the main contract is invalid.

8. Comparative Analysis

9. Conclusion

The doctrines of Severance and Invalidity represent two contrasting judicial approaches:

• Severance promotes commercial efficacy and fairness, allowing courts to preserve lawful parts of agreements.
• Invalidity ensures illegal or fundamentally flawed contracts are not enforced.

Case law—from Nordenfelt to Tillman—shows a modern judicial preference toward measured severance, provided it does not involve rewriting contracts or undermining public policy.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina