paragraphs, including the arbitration agreement paragraph, do not contain the Carden Shares limiting language. A court must strive to reach an interpretation which gives a reasonable, lawful, and effective meaning to all the terms of an agreement. See Restatement (Second) § 203(a) (1981). We must assume that no part of the agreement is superfluous. See id. Furthermore, Harvey and Lofblad have not alleged, nor do they argue on appeal, that the limiting language was mistakenly omitted from paragraph eight. For the foregoing reasons, we find that the agreement to arbitrate in the August 1998 Agreement is not subject to a sus-pensive condition and is therefore valid. Cf. Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395, 403-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801, 1805-06, 18 L.Ed.2d 1270 (1967) (<HOLDING>). D. Having defined the scope of the
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 a party seeking to compel arbitration must establish the existence of an arbitration agreement and show that the claims raised fall within the scope of that agreement holding that an arbitration agreement is separable from the underlying agreement 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 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