(1) As used in this section, the term “strong public policy” means public policy of sufficient importance to outweigh the policy of protecting freedom of contract.
(2) A court may not enforce:
(a) A choice of law provision in a contract selecting the law of a foreign country which contravenes the strong public policy of this state or that is unjust or unreasonable.
(b) A forum selection clause in a contract that selects a forum in a foreign country if the clause is shown to be unreasonable or unjust or if strong public policy would prohibit the enforceability of the clause under the specific facts of the case.
(3) Before enforcing a judgment or order of a court of a foreign country, a court must review the judgment or order to ensure that it complies with the rule of comity. A judgment or order of a court of a foreign country is not entitled to comity if the parties were not given adequate notice and the opportunity to be heard, the foreign court did not have jurisdiction, or the judgment or order of the foreign court offends the public policy of this state. As used in this subsection, a “foreign court” or “court of a foreign country” includes any court or tribunal that has jurisdiction under the laws of that nation over the subject of matters governed by this chapter or chapter 88.
(4) Any attempt to apply the law of a foreign country is void if it contravenes the strong public policy of this state or if the law is unjust or unreasonable.
(5) A trial court may not dismiss an action on the grounds that a satisfactory remedy may be more conveniently sought in a foreign country unless the trial court finds in accordance with all the applicable rules of civil procedure and this section that an adequate alternate forum exists.
(6) This section applies only to matters governed by or relating to this chapter or chapter 88.
The purpose of this section is to codify existing case law, and that intent should guide the interpretation of this section.