I hesitate to comment on another nation's laws, because if it works for them I'm glad (motes and beams, etc.), but ISTM "shall not be binding upon the consumer" understates a great deal of legal procedure, nearly all of which would be increased business for the tort bar. (Which, again, may be less of a problem for other nations than it is for us.) If 100 consumers feel a contract term is unfair and so decline to meet their obligations, the firm will file a suit against e.g. the 20 least likely ones to contest rather than settle, which is good for the firm's attorneys (or is it barristers?). Etc. Eventually a consumer will contest the suit under the provisions of this law. That will entail more court business.

In anticipation of this rigmarole, this law was probably a great one-time boost for those who rewrite contracts for purposes of risk-management. It certainly wasn't welcomed by small shopkeepers who enter into relatively simple contracts with their customers (e.g. to purchase an expensive item on terms). To compensate, such firms might have told their customers "the new law means it doesn't matter what's on the contract". Although untrue, that statement would be plausible enough to generate more sales, at least until consumers heard enough stories about court cases that they no longer believed it. Certainly there are consumers who have been helped by this law, but there are probably others who have been disappointed by it.