it found that Langley was acting on Ranger’s behalf. Lee contracted with Ranger to allow Ranger “to apprehend and surrender [him] to the proper officials at any time for violation of [his] bail bond(s) obligations.” Lee’s contractual submission to Ranger’s authority to apprehend him, which was not limited in geographical scope and expressly contemplated Lee’s apprehension outside of Colorado, did not condition Ranger’s arrest authority on the state licensing status of any eventual enforcement agent. ¶ 15 While the bail contract would not relieve Langley from criminal liability under the Act, it does preclude Lee from arguing in this civil action that Ranger — and by extension Langley — had no authority to apprehend him in Utah. Cf. Snyder v. Lovercheck, 992 P.2d 1079, 1087 (Wyo.1999) (<HOLDING>). Lee personally and expressly authorized his
holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract holding that when a conflict arises between parties to a contract regarding the subject matter of that contract the contractual relationship controls and parties are not permitted to assert actions in tort in an attempt to circumvent the bargain they agreed upon holding that the existence of a valid contract bars the imposition of a constructive trust because quasicontractual claims such an unjust enrichment are not permitted if a written contract between the parties governs the subject matter of their dispute holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract holding that parties can stipulate that they were both parties to a contract and thus the real parties in interest even when one party did not sign the contract