From this point of view, the parties should assess whether the salvatoriale clause is useful for any important provision of the treaty. It is quite possible that an amendment would be acceptable for certain provisions. However, for others, the parties may prefer that the clause be deleted, or even that the contract be invalidated. In the absence of a salvatorial clause, an illegal clause could invalidate the entire contract. A salvatorial clause could remove the provision of interest or reduce the interest rate to a legal interest rate. The invalidity of a given clause, provision or agreement does not entail the total or partial invalidation of the rest of that plan, but this remainder is and remains as complete in all respects as the law permits. In this situation, instead of amending the parties` contract to remove the prohibitions on competition, the buyer might very much prefer that the entire contract be cancelled. In addition, the standardized nature of these provisions facilitates certainty and predictability in their interpretation and application. However, the draftsman should carefully consider the particular circumstances of the transaction and the intention of the parties before including a boilerplate provision in a contract. The reckless transplantation of a boilerplate provision into an agreement by an underwriter can inadvertently destroy the contractual intent of the parties and result in significant losses. A severability clause could take the following form: “If any provision of this agreement is declared illegal or unenforceable in legal proceedings, that provision will be separate and ineffective, and the rest of this agreement will remain effective and binding on the parties.” In this draft, the potential effect of this clause could be devastating in a scenario where an obscure and neglected legislative provision made it impossible for a party to apply an economically indispensable contractual clause. . .