Section 6(a) provides that any terms in the arbitration agreement must be in a "record." This too follows both the UAA and FAA requirements that arbitration agreements be in writing. However, a subsequent, oral agreement about terms of an arbitration contract is valid. This position is in accord with the unanimous holding of courts that a written contract can be modified by a subsequent, oral arrangement provided that the latter is supported by valid consideration. Premier Technical Sales, Inc. v. Digital Equip. Corp., 11 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (N.D. Cal. 1998); Cambridgeport Savings Bank v. Boersner, 413 Mass. 432, 597 N.E.2d 1017 (1992); Pellegrene v. Luther, 403 Pa. 212, 169 A.2d 298 (1961); Pacific Dev., L.C. v. Orton, 982 P.2d 94 (Utah App. 1999). Indeed it is typical in the arbitration context, for many parties to have only a short statement in their contracts concerning the resolution of disputes by arbitration, and perhaps a reference to the rules of an arbitration organization. It is oftentimes only after the initial arbitration agreement is written and when a dispute arises that the parties enter into more detailed agreements as to how their arbitration process will work. Such subsequent understandings, whether oral or written, are part of the arbitration agreement.

Subsection (a), being the same as Section 1 of the Uniform Arbitration Act ("UAA"), is intended to include arbitration provisions contained in the bylaws of corporate or other associations as valid and enforceable arbitration agreements. Courts that have addressed whether arbitration provisions contained in the bylaws of corporate or other associations are enforceable under the UAA have unanimously held that they are. See Elbadramany v. Stanley, 490 So.2d 964, 964-65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1986); Wigod v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 490 N.E.2d 39 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986); Van C. Argiris & Co. v. May, 398 N.E.2d 1239, 1240 (Ill. App. Ct. 1979); Maine Cent. R. Co. v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 395 A.2d 1107, 1119-1121 (Me. 1978). See also Keith Adams & Associates, Inc. v. Edwards, 477 P.2d 36, 38 (Wash. Ct. App. 1970); Willard Alexander, Inc. v. Glasser, 290 N.E.2d 813, 814 (N.Y. 1972).

This result, that corporate bylaws are contracts between the corporation and its shareholders and among its shareholders, is consistent with the rule in the majority of jurisdictions, including Delaware, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, and California. See ER Holdings, Inc. v. Norton Co., 735 F. Supp.