And then what? Your draft doesn't actually address the question raised. If the buyer is not bound by the terms presented by the seller, to what terms is the buyer bound? If the seller has no way of protecting any of its expectations, why should it engage in transactions at all?

So let's make the draft better by actually answering the question. Instead of the terms presented by the seller that we no longer presume they buyer has read and accepted, the law imposes other terms. What are they? How are they determined, and by what non-fictional means do we ensure that buyers actually know those terms? Or have we stopped caring whether buyers understand the terms that apply to their purchases? If actual knowledge is not the goal, what was wrong with the original state of affairs in the first place? If, on the other hand, we can achieve actual knowledge of the new terms, what would have prevented the seller from rephrasing the original terms in such a way as to convey actual knowledge?

Is the buyer free of all responsibility to understand? Is the actual and intentional ignorance of the buyer an option to nullify all terms? Does this apply to everything, or just to terms of services on the Web?