Opinion ID: 1405111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Retroactive Application of the New Principles of Law

Text: Even if the majority was correct that, under its new law relating to the enforceability of forum-selection clauses, this suit should have been brought in Virginia, it is clearly unjust to enforce the new principles of law in this case, particularly by doing so without remanding the case for application of the new test by the circuit court. Indeed, I am at a complete loss to understand how the majority can allow Massey to benefit-to the tune of more than fifty million dollars plus interest-from a forum-selection clause contained in a contract that Massey actively sought to destroy. That the majority considers the application of the forum-selection clause in this case to be an equitable result is beyond comprehension.
As previously discussed, the majority adopts a brand new legal test for determining the validity and applicability of a forum-selection clause, a test which necessarily requires findings of fact. The majority, however, refuses to remand the case for application of the test by the circuit court. Instead, flying in the face of clear precedent, the majority makes its own findings of fact in applying the test, without providing the plaintiffs any opportunity to establish an appropriate evidentiary record. Accordingly, because the plaintiffs did not have a crystal ball during the early stages of this case, they are precluded from even attempting to comport with the new legal principles set forth by the majority. It is well-settled that a State may not deprive a person of all existing remedies for the enforcement of a right, which the State has no power to destroy, unless there is, or was, afforded to him some real opportunity to protect it. Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings v. Hill, 281 U.S. 673, 682, 50 S.Ct. 451, 74 L.Ed. 1107 (1930). Nevertheless, that is exactly what the majority has done here. Indeed, by enunciating new principles of law and applying them to the case at hand, instead of remanding the case to the circuit court for further evidentiary analysis, the majority violates the plaintiffs' due process rights.