in recent times.” See Wallis, 261 Ark. at 627, 550 S.W.2d at 456. Under the new approach, which is an adoption of Dr. Robert A. Leflar’s “choice influencing considerations,” Arkansas courts look to the following five factors to determine which state’s law to apply: (1) predictability of results; (2) maintenance of interstate and international order; (3) simplification of judicial task; (4) advancement of the forum’s governmental interests; and (5) application of the better rule of law. See Schlemmer v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 292 Ark. 344, 346, 730 S.W.2d 217, 219 (1987) (citing Wallis v. Mrs. Smith’s Pie Co., 261 Ark. 622, 550 S.W.2d 453 (1977) (en banc); Williams v. Carr, 263 Ark. 326, 565 S.W.2d 400 (1978)); see also Whirlpool Corp. v. Ritter, 929 F.2d 1318, 1321 (8th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). “In other words, the Arkansas Court, as the
recognizing that the hawaii supreme court has in the past looked to california for guidance on tort law holding that tort law and the law of punitive damages are not controlled by the contract choice of law provision recognizing that in wallis the arkansas supreme court replaced the traditional choice of law rules in tort actions with dr leflars approach holding in a successor liability case that questions of traditional tort law unrelated to the contract were properly governed under forum law holding that traditional commercial contract provided for termination at will under arkansas law