Lancashireman Jan 16, 2017:

"If one is 'final provisions', what is the other?" 1) I think we all agree that your original suggestion for 'Schlußvorschriften' (namely 'Final provisions') works fine.
2) KudoZ is for single items, in this case presumably 'Schlußbestimmungen'.
3) Your original reservations concerning two instances of 'Final' are justified.
4) A severability clause cannot be described as 'terms'.

Carolyn Korzilius (asker) Jan 16, 2017:

in fact they do not refer to the same content: one is invalidity of terms/provisions, the other amendments /addenda to contract inter alia, and the same meaning is not a meaningful answer/solution to the question.
Whilst I am happy with 'severability' for the second, 'Amendments ' for the former is straying rather too wide from the original and amendments are only part of the content of that clause.

Martin Ris Jan 15, 2017:

A camel is a horse drawn by a committee... What you are looking at is an imperfectly drafted agreement. The person who added the second 'final' heading did not proofread the agreement carefully enough to see the first 'final' heading.

As your job is not to improve the agreement, feel free to stick with strict translation, and use two 'finals'. There is no difference in terms of contractual significance.

But, if you feel you have the leeway, you could use meaningful headings. In which case, it sounds like the first might be 'Amendments' and the second 'Severability'.

A common practice in the US is to use a main heading 'Miscellaneous', and then deal with issues such as amendments, severability, choice of law, etc., using sub-headings (or not).