but one part of a comprehensive agreement between the parties. Thus, we must first discuss who shall decide what in the context of formation challenges to contracts containing arbitration clauses. The proper allocation of responsibility for deciding such questions was first addressed in the seminal arbitration case, Prima Paint. There, the Supreme Court announced that courts are the proper forum to evaluate a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause, but where the entire agreement of which an arbitration clause is but a part is challenged, such evaluation is properly left to the arbitrator. Prima Paint, 388 U.S. at 403-04, 87 S.Ct. 1801. For over forty years, the Supreme Court has relied on that distinction. See, e.g., Buckeye Check Cashing, 546 U.S. at 446, 126 S.Ct. 1204 (<HOLDING>); Rent-A-Center, 130 S.Ct. at 2779-80
holding that the trial court not the arbitrator must decide a challenge to an arbitration provision based on public policy holding a challenge of unconscionability to the whole contract as opposed to the arbitration provision specifically is an arbitrable matter not properly considered by the court holding that whether in federal or state court a challenge to the validity of the contract as a whole and not specifically to the arbitration clause within it must go to the arbitrator and not the court holding that because respondents challenged a contract broadly without challenging the arbitration clause specifically challenge must be considered by an arbitrator holding that where a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator