3. A provision in the RUAA specifically empowering courts to order consolidation in appropriate cases makes sense for several reasons. As in the judicial forum, consolidation effectuates efficiency in conflict resolution and avoidance of conflicting results. By agreeing to include an arbitration clause, parties have indicated that they wish their disputes to be resolved in such a manner. In many cases, moreover, a court may be the only practical forum within which to effect consolidation. See Schenectady v. Schenectady Patrolmen's Benev. Ass'n, 138 A. D.2d 882, 883, 526 N.Y.S.2d 259, 260 (1988). Furthermore, it is likely that in many cases one or more parties, often non-drafting parties, will not have considered the impact of the arbitration clause on multiparty disputes. By establishing a default provision which permits consolidation (subject to various limitations) in the absence of a specific contractual provision, Section 10 encourages drafters to address the issue expressly and enhances the possibility that all parties will be on notice regarding the issue.

Section 10 is an adaptation of consolidation provisions in the California and Georgia statutes. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1281.3 (West 1997); Ga. Code Ann. § 9-9-6 (1996). It gives courts discretion to consolidate separate arbitration proceedings in the presence of multiparty disputes involving common issues of fact or law.

Like other sections of the RUAA, however, the provision also embodies the fundamental principle of judicial respect for the preservation and enforcement of the terms of agreements to arbitrate. Thus, Section 10(c) recognizes that consolidation of a party's claims should not be ordered in contravention of provisions of arbitration agreements prohibiting consolidation. See also Section 4(a). However, Section 10 is not intended to address the issue as to the validity of arbitration clauses in the context of class-wide disputes. For cases concerning this issue, see, e.g., Lozada v. Dale Baker Oldsmobile, Inc., 91 F.Supp. 2d 1087 (W.D.Mich. 2000) (finding an arbitration provision is unconscionable in part because it waives class remedies allowable under Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"), as well as certain declaratory and injunctive relief under federal and