that all fair and reasonable minds would find it impossible under the contract); OK Lumber, 123 P.3d at 1078-79 (concluding that arbitrator had not exceeded powers by resolving a matter of disagreement under the lease); Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Pub. Safety Emps. Ass'n, 732 P.2d 1090, 1097 (Alaska 1987) (deciding that the arbitrator had properly interpreted the issues submitted and that the arbitrator had not exceeded his authority). 31 . Ahtna, 894 P.2d at 663. 32 . See id. at 658. 33 . See id. at 659. 34 . See id. 35 . See id. 36 . See id. 37 . See id. at 662. 38 . Id. at 663. 39 . Id. (emphasis in original). 40 . Id. 41 . - Id. at 662 (second alteration in original). 42 . Id. 43 . See id. at 662-63; see also OK Lumber Co. v. Alaska R.R. Corp., 123 P.3d 1076, 1078-79 (Alaska 2005) (<HOLDING>). 44 . The Aleut Corporation further claims
recognizing that questions of arbitrability canbe delegated to the arbitrator but concluding that the parties did not agree to submit any issues to the arbitrator because the agreement never came into existence by its terms holding that because the parties agreed to arbitrate and both placed the issue before the arbitrator the issue of consolidation was for the arbitrator holding courts should interpret the contract using the references of the particular customs and usages of the trade of the parties to the contract holding that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority because it was necessary to interpret the contract to resolve the parties dispute holding that an arbitrator not a federal or state court will resolve questions concerning validity in the first instance when parties agree to arbitrate all disputes arising under their contract