These trades involved interstate commerce. See, e.g., Wachovia Securities LLC v. Emery, 186 S.W.3d 107, 112 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.). Thus, the Bryce Interests partnership agreement “turn[ed] out to involve interstate commerce,” and as such, “evidenc[es] a transaction involving interstate commerce.” Therefore, the arbitration provision falls within the bounds of the FAA. See 9 U.S.C. § 2; Dobson, 513 U.S. at 277, 115 S.Ct. at 841. Moreover, the partnership agreement provides that it “shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State of Texas and the courts of that state, except as may otherwise be required by the laws of any other jurisdiction.” Generic language such as this invokes both federal and state law. See Wilson, 196 S.W.3d at 778-79 (<HOLDING>); In re L & L Kempwood Assocs., L.P., 9 S.W.3d
holding that both faa and taa applied where contracts stated they shall be governed by the law of the place where the project is located holding that the meaning of the coverage limit is governed by the law of place of contracting because it goes to the substance of obligation holding that a dispute is governed by both the convention and the faa because nothing in the convention or its history or in the implementing legislation or its history suggests exclusivity from the faa  holding that agreement to employ arbitration organized under the statutes or the courts of the states in which the complaining party is domiciled invokes both faa and taa holding that ejxcept in matters governed by the federal constitution or by acts of congress the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state