case in a court of law. The court of law would then have to decide whether the entire contract is valid simply in order to determine whether the arbitration clause is valid such that the case may be submitted to arbitration. Obviously, however, at this point res judicata would render any action taken by an arbitrator superfluous and irrelevant, and thus defeat the entire purpose of the arbitration clause, since the court of law would have already decided the larger substantive issue of contractual validity. The law under the FAA and Buckeye, therefore, mandates a different result. In the wake of Buckeye, courts have ruled that challenges to the entire contract, such as this one, are subject to arbitration. See, e.g., Sleeper Farms v. Agway, Inc., 506 F.3d 98, 102-03 (1st Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); Community State Bank v. Strong, 485 F.3d 597,
holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator holding that the arbitrator was without jurisdiction to consider an issue which was not included in the written notice of arbitration and was added on the first day of the arbitration hearing holding if the claim is fraud in the inducement of the arbitration clause itself  an issue that goes to the making of the agreement to arbitrate  the federal court may proceed to adjudicate it otherwise claims involving the contract generally should be decided by the arbitrator holding that the issue of whether contract which contained arbitration agreement was illegal should be properly decided by arbitrator not court holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement