The provisions of this act are certainly substantive. Newly enacted statutes are generally given only prospective effect unless there is clear evidence that the legislature intended to give the statute retroactive effect. Statutes should be construed retroactively only when the mandate of the legislature is imperative. Many cases have upheld this construction, such as Neiditz v. Statutes are applied retroactively in a very narrow category of cases.
Retroactive application is the rule for amending statutes that are procedural in their impact.
An act that has been passed to clarify an existing statute, that is, one that was passed shortly after controversies arose as to the judicial interpretation of the original act, is also to be applied retroactively. All other statutes are applied prospectively unless the legislature expressly specifies the contrary. Legislative history concerning this Act is silent on retroactivity. Therefore, in view of section 55-3 and the rules of statutory construction mentioned above, this Act does not have retroactive application, and existing contracts are not to be nullified if they do not have the various provisions required by this Act. Since question one has been answered in the negative, question two need not be answered.