103 S.Ct. 927, 74 L.Ed.2d 765 (1983) (noting that federal policy favors arbitration). Nevertheless, parties cannot be forced into arbitration unless they have agreed to do so. AT & T Techs. Inc. v. Commc’ns Workers, 475 U.S. 643, 648-49, 106 S.Ct. 1415, 89 L.Ed.2d 648 (1986). Moreover, the authority of arbitrators to resolve disputes is derived from the agreement of parties to engage in arbitration. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm’n v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 294, 122 S.Ct. 754, 151 L.Ed.2d 755 (2002). Because arbitration provisions are in essence a matter of contract between the parties, it is for the courts to decide whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause. Howsam v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 537 U.S. 79, 84, 123 S.Ct. 588, 154 L.Ed.2d 491 (2002) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation omitted). Such questions
holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement holding that a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide holding that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary issues of substantive arbitrability  are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability ie whether prerequisites such as time limits notice laches estoppel and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met are for the arbitrators to decide  quoting the revised uniform arbitration act of 2000 ruaa  6c cmt 2 emphasis added and in the original holding that all issues other than arbitrability such as fraud in the inducement are for the arbitrator to decide after a court has determined that the arbitration agreement is valid recognizing a presumption of arbitrability when a contract contains an arbitration clause