North Carolina has enacted the Uniform Arbitration Act as well as a general attorney’s fees statute that permits fees to be awarded in certain contractual disputes. As in our case, the Nucor agreement to arbitrate did not include attorney’s fees, and no fees were awarded by the arbitrators. On confirmation proceedings in the North Carolina trial court, the court added fees to the award, pursuant-to a separate attorney’s fees statute, for work done in the arbitration, as did the trial court here. Id. at 151, 423 S.E.2d at 749. The court of appeals affirmed, as did ours. Th between the parties. The trial court cannot fill gaps in the parties’ agreement, nor may the parties expect it to do so. Cf. Smitty’s Supervalu, Inc. v. Pasqualetti, 22 Ariz.App. 178, 182, 525 P.2d 309, 313 (1974) (<HOLDING>). We also believe the Uniform Act had sound
holding administrative tribunal need not mirror judicial procedures holding that the plaintiffs had relied on illinois law because they could have filed in a different forum having a different statute of limitations holding the antiinjunction act inapplicable unless tribunal is performing a state judicial function holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because it was necessary to interpret the contract to resolve the parties dispute holding that the parties having chosen a different tribunal may not reinstate judicial tribunals to resolve the controversy