courts to enter judgment. Only then will the circuit court be able to properly exercise its authority. An express aim of the Act is that its provisions are to be construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it. 710 ILCS 5/20 (West 1998). Our determination comports with the holdings expressed by courts in other jurisdictions. See Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District v. Chicago Southshore & South Bend R.R., 685 N.E.2d 680, 694-95 (Ind. 1997) (noting that counterpart section in Indiana Uniform Act essentially enables the parties to control by contract what court may review an action to enforce an award and effectively provides the basis of jurisdiction); Tru Green Corp. v. Sampson, 802 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Ky. App. 1991) (<HOLDING>); H.T.I. Corp. v. Lida Manufacturing Co., 785
holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision holding that where an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee does not specifically provide for the handling of arbitration costs california courts should interpret the arbitration agreement  as providing  that the employer must bear the arbitration forum costs holding that once the party seeking to compel arbitration establishes the existence of an arbitration agreement and that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement the trial court must compel arbitration holding that the plain meaning of the counterpart provision in the kentucky uniform act reveals that the arbitration agreement must provide for the arbitration itself to be in kentucky in order to confer subjectmatter jurisdiction on a kentucky court holding that the federal arbitration act requires piecemeal resolution when necessary to give effect to an arbitration agreement and mandates enforcement of an arbitration agreement notwithstanding the presence of other persons who are parties to the underlying dispute but not to the arbitration agreement emphasis added