somewhat difficult. Some challenges to a contract containing an arbitration provision or the arbitration provision itself are to be decided by the trial court, and others are to be decided by the arbitrator. The United States Supreme Court has written extensively on this issue, albeit, in reference to the FAA, not the FAC. For example, in Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna, 546 U.S. 440, 126 S.Ct. 1204, 163 L.Ed.2d 1038 (2006), the Court addressed a challenge to an arbitration agreement in a Florida contract based oh a party’s allegations that the contract itself was illegal and void as a matter of public policy. Id. at 442, 126 S.Ct. 1204. The Court expressly noted and addressed the following types of challenges to arbitration agreements: 23, 434 S.W.3d 357, 360-61 (2014) (<HOLDING>); Texas La Fiesta Auto Sales, LLC v. Belk, 349
holding that in the absence of an express provision excluding class actions from arbitration an individual claimant could not get out of his agreement to arbitrate simply by filing his claims in a class action holding that the trial court must determine whether an agreement to arbitrate was reached when several contracts the subject of a class action allegedly did not contain an arbitration provision holding that the trial court must determine whether there was an agreement to arbitrate when the party contesting arbitration claimed she had never signed the contract or intended to be bound holding the trial court may determine issue of condition precedent to enforcement of agreement to arbitrate holding that a contracts choiceoflaw provision did not determine the scope of an arbitration clause