As far as legally permissible? Not a good idea!
A contract clause with the addition "to the extent permitted by law" is ineffective. In the case of a jurisdiction clause, this is a serious issue.

Certified Specialist in International Business Law Certified Specialist in Commercial & Corporate Law ICC-registered trainer for Incoterms® 2020 Arbitrator (DIS, ICC)
December 12, 2022
Original language
German
Initial Situation
Jurisdiction clauses (but also other contractual clauses) often contain an addition that essentially reads: "...to the extent permitted by law." Either the drafter copied the relevant clause and did not think about it (which is always a bad idea) or did not know what is legally permissible or not. The fact is, such a contractual clause can become problematic.
Case Law
The Bavarian Supreme Regional Court (BayObLG) dealt with the validity of the following jurisdiction clause contained in general terms and conditions in a contract between two entrepreneurs (BayObLG, Order of 26 October 2021 – 101 AR 148/21):
"The place of jurisdiction for all disputes arising from this contract is exclusively Stuttgart, to the extent permitted by law."
The BayObLG considers this clause to be invalid. Unlike the two lower courts, it did not address the relevant provisions of the German Code of Civil Procedure (especially § 38 ZPO) but already found the clause to be invalid due to a violation of the transparency requirement under the law of general terms and conditions (§ 307 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 BGB).
Firstly, the court points out that the contract text, in which the jurisdiction clause is embedded, already exhibits the character of a form used by the plaintiff based on its external appearance as well as its content, and thus constitutes a general term and condition.
The court considers the jurisdiction clause - even in business transactions - to be non-transparent due to the addition "to the extent permitted by law," which leads to the invalidity of this clause.
It has not yet been determined at the highest judicial level whether a severability clause in general terms and conditions can be exceptionally deemed valid if the legal situation is doubtful or if the user should be spared from formulating exceptions for exceptional circumstances in the interest of the clarity of the clause. However, if the legal situation is clear, for which a regulation is to be made in general terms and conditions, and the issue of clarity for this regulation is not relevant, severability clauses in general terms and conditions - even in business transactions - cannot be validly agreed. In this situation, the user is rather required to provide a clear version of their general terms and conditions. They cannot leave it to the courts to limit a broadly and carelessly formulated clause to the legally permissible measure and thus give it any content at all; however, this is what the use of a severability clause leads to.
The court's view is correct and not surprising. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) had already ruled in 1995 (BGH, Judgment of 12 October 1995 - I ZR 172/93) and in 2012 (BGH, Order of 20 November 2012 - VIII ZR 137/12) that severability clauses of the type "to the extent permitted by law" in general terms and conditions cannot be validly agreed upon if the legal situation is not seriously doubtful. In this context, the prohibition of validity-preserving reduction must also be observed, according to which it is the responsibility of the user of the general terms and conditions if the clause is not clear and understandable. It is not the task of the courts to limit the clause to the legally permissible extent.
Practical Note from the User's Perspective
Avoid the addition "to the extent permitted by law" in your pre-formulated contractual clauses, especially in the jurisdiction clause. This addition brings no security but, on the contrary, leads to the invalidity of the clause. This naturally also applies to similar additions such as "to the extent that no mandatory provisions are opposed," "to the extent that the law does not prescribe otherwise mandatorily," etc.
Practical Note from the Contract Partner's Perspective
You have a convincing argument for the invalidity of the clause and can use this knowledge tactically in case of a dispute.
Do you have questions on this topic or need support with implementation?
We specialize in International Business Law, Corporate Law, Compliance, and Contract Management.
Schedule a free initial call now!
Current Business Law Topics

UK Compliance 2025: "Failure to Prevent Fraud" – New Requirements for German Companies
What internationally active companies with UK connections need to know now

EU-Russia Sanctions – Update July 2025: EU Adopts 18th Sanctions Package
New measures against the shadow fleet, Russian energy sector, and financial actors: What companies need to know now

EU-Russia Sanctions: From the 14th to the 18th Sanctions Package
Recognizing Dynamics – Building Resilience: What Companies Need to Know and Do Now

Commercial Courts in Germany: An Alternative for International Business Disputes
The new Commercial Courts in Germany are here. Learn about the advantages the English-language commercial courts offer your company in economic disputes.

How to Avoid U.S. Tariffs as an International Supplier
This article shows how to avoid tariffs as a supplier by using the appropriate Incoterms 2020 clause in your supply contracts with U.S. buyers.