exists; and (3) whether the right to arbitration was waived.” Seifert v. U.S. Home Corp., 750 So.2d 633, 636 (Fla.1999); Truly Nolen of Am., Inc. v. King Cole Condo. Ass’n, 143 So.3d 1015, 1016-17 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). The parties agree that SELA has not waived its right to arbitrate and that their dispute is subject to the arbitration provision if the contract and that provision are valid. Thus, the only issue presented by this appeal is the first of those elements: whether a valid written agreement to arbitrate exists. The question of which decision-maker (the trial court or the arbitrator) should determine whether a valid agreement exists would appear on its surface to be a simple one, but the case law from federal and Florida courts makes that dete W.3d 872, 881-82 (Tex.Ct.App.2011) (<HOLDING>). We agree with and join the above holdings due
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 that the ninth circuit looks to state contract law to determine whether an arbitration award is valid 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 recognizing that incorporated document containing arbitration clause is not necessarily required to be attached to the contract holding that the trial court must determine whether a subsequent contract superseded and invalidated a prior contract containing an arbitration provision