bases: 1) Florida law does not regard conditions precedent as issues of contract formation; and 2) alleged conditions precedent that are not expressly adopted by the underlying contract are not appropriate for district court consideration. First, although Florida law permits an exception to the parol evidence rule in the context of a condition precedent, such an exception does not overturn the propriety of the district court’s order compelling arbitration. Florida law permits oral testimony to show that a written contract, while unconditional on its face, was delivered subject to a condition precedent. See Ketchian v. Concannon, 435 So.2d 39 tion for purposes of Granite Rock under Florida law. See Victor v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 606 So.2d 681, 683 n. 5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, distinct from the nature of a
holding that the issue of whether contract which contained arbitration agreement was illegal should be properly decided by arbitrator not court holding that affirmative defenses are waived if not pled holding under both florida law and faa that factual affirmative defenses are properly decided by the arbitrator rather than the court recognizing that the statute of limitations provision of the aedpa is an affirmative defenses rather than jurisdictional holding defenses concerning the contract as a whole must be referred to ah arbitrator while defenses to the arbitration provision itself are considered by the court