But that's exactly what it should say!

The problem with trying to cover everything, is that it has eroded the definition of informed consent. Expecting a person to do a informed decision on everything is difficult for even a certified expert on law, and much of "everything" is only relevant in context of local law and local contract law which dictate what is and isn't acceptable in a contract.

We are thus in a rather odd situation where most contracts and agreements are signed without the signer having a clue what they agree to.

Various jurisdictions have consumer protection laws that try to help here. What I think would help is if, for consumer contracts:

1. The weight of individual terms diminished in law as the contract length increases. A reasonable length would be judged by the nature of the contract (a reasonable length for the simple sale of goods would be short, a complex arrangement like a mortgage would be expected to be longer).

2. If for a particular term in favour of party A, party A cannot reasonably believe that party B read and understood it at the time of forming the contract, then the term is void. For example, if a contract is presented to me as a consumer, I clearly have never seen it before and sign it immediately without reading it, the signature should mean nothing and the only contract that exists should be an implied contract around what we are doing.

> Would this work when there are different laws for different jurisdictions and there is no way to tell for sure where the user acutally is located? I thought the reason behind the obviousness was to cover everything.

This is an obvious difficulty, though it could perhaps be alleviated somewhat by #5 (Adopt an industry standard) - some kind of "base" set of T&Cs and standardised vocabulary for each jurisdiction.