| 5. By adopting Section 3(c) a legislature will express a |
| specific intent that the RUAA, on the date which the |
| legislature selects, will have retroactive application as to |
| arbitration agreements entered into prior to the effective |
| date of the legislation and where the parties have not opted |
| into coverage under the RUAA during the interim period under |
| Section 3(a)(2). Courts generally require legislatures to |
| express such an intent as to retroactive application. |
| Millenium Solutions, Inc. v. Davis, 258 Neb. 293, 603 N.W.2d |
| 406 (1999) (holding that because legislature did not clearly |
| express an intention that Uniform Arbitration Act was to be |
| applied retroactively, it only applies prospectively); see |
| also Koch v. S.E.C., 177 F.3d 784 (9th Cir. 1999); Phillips v. |
| Curiale, 128 N.J. 608, 608 A.2d 895 (1992). Retroactive |
| application of statutes to preexisting contracts is acceptable |
| when the legislation has a legitimate purpose and the measures |
| are reasonable and appropriate to that end. 2 Sutherland Stat. |
| Const. § 41.07 (5th ed. 1993). The need for uniform |
| application of arbitration laws and to avoid two sets of rules |
| for arbitration agreements that are of a long-term duration |
| are legitimate rationales for retroactive application, |
| especially because parties will be given a time period in |
| which to determine whether to opt for coverage under the UAA |
| or the RUAA and during which to adjust any provisions in their |
| arbitration agreements for eventual application of the RUAA. |
| These same rationales were used for similar provisions in the |
| Revised Uniform Partnership Act and the Uniform Limited |
| Liability Partnership Act. |
