rulings and they also agreed that at least some parts of every claim were subject to arbitration or there the place they diverge does that the district court some parts of some claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration agreement and should be litigated whereas the magistrate judge concluded that all parts of all claims even the magistrate judge got it right here in the district court judge got her on the real controlling point the law here on clarity before it will conclude that the parties want to ex clues other claims from that as a matter of the law here there isn't any clarity on excluding the claims that the district court brought out in fact the arbitration agreements use fourteen agreement the language of course is exceptionally clear it says that the we and us who can invoke arbitration include any merchants that use the card to buy things from which of course and who's bigger and it also says that all claims include not just those arising out of a really good credit but arising out of a real way to do this in services you purchase and there just isn't any argument here reasonable or you know these claims to hold that so let me turn to no i i don't think it does and you're right that's what the district or it's a it's a good introductory language on this limits the later more specific language i don't think that's consistent with the ordinary canons of construction which say that if there is something that's general something arbitration clause here in that you know it says you by following the instructions below your brain that this is what's going to happen and of course we agree and in everyone agrees that you and we can that the parties can choose to have any dispute arising out of a relating to this agreement or the relationship resolve a binding arbitration that's certainly true the later phrases here give meaning to that question what exactly would it mean if you were to rely on the language as the initial formation it is governed by state contract law once it's concluded there's a binding arbitration agreement federal law on the policy under the earth ration act provides that you can construe broadly is your honour's of hell the unison case and is covered by the arbitration clause the test for sco is not as the other side is it's suggested whether the plaintiffs need to rely on the contract terms to make their claim that's a different issue that's an issue about who can foresee more civility this court in the p r m case that we cited here from this court specifically says that in determining whether the scope of the clause is broad enough to cover the claims we do not consider the fact that the defendant is not a party to the agreement so the plaintiffs are confusing it in that the chief judge below with respect also confused the question of who can enforce and scope there are different and on the scope one is limited by the kinds of parties who can and forces so samsung and other manufacturers would be able to enforce this they have no claim under this and so that's one limiting principle it's the who can force here of course the person and forcing you this is blue sto businesses finger as the plaintiffs admit fingerhut was the one who offered them credit it offered them that in order to buy products at finger they allege in the complaint that fingerhut was the creditor and to just to follow a little bit honor on on your question on here the allegation of plaintiffs is that bluestone fingerhut was the creditor there allegation is that fingerhut charge both things there alegate allegation is that the prices were marketed as monthly charges and so this is a closer integration of the sale of the product and credit that any case they've cited or that with that we've seen because this is the way it's packaged and if you go down through there are allegations there aren't these separate claims for usury that that is something that the district court added that is not in the complaint and logically it doesn't make sense because usury their claim is that when you add up the price to the disclosed finance charges it exceeds the usury limits what the district court has resulted is that in arbitration now there is going to be the part of the claim where you say yes there was an undisclosed finance charge and that plus the disclosed one violate usury so they're going to have to decide whether there is an undisclosed finance charge in arbitration and then litigation the court's going to say was there an undisclosed financial charge an issue be treated that way and is it violated on its own so both forum are going to be considering precisely the same question on the same facts for the same claims number it is the same claims in the complaint so so to be clear there is a greater overlap of claims here than in any case that they've pointed on there that would clearly an ambiguous they fall within the scope of this language if they were to bring it against somebody else there would be a strong argument that the somebody else was an embrace by this but to address your point had on you what i hear your honor saying is there is concern here on reasonably broadly and and and that concern can be addressed within a couple of ways one is on the scope of consent information in the first place that draws real limits on formation another is on the scope of who can enforce that draws the limits on there and ultimately there's limits drawn by the scope of the language and the reasonable interpretation on that and in the appropriate case this court would draw those limits and say no this falls outside there isn't something like an over breath challenge to a contract though that applies where the actual claims in front of the court are so clearly in the middle of this relationship as these ones are to the extent there was any such challenge like that or the validity of the contract the magistrate judge correctly held that all of those claims i would have to go to the arbitrator because validity is one thing sent there this is specifically in her report recommendation that pages sixty three and sixty seven in the it is not a portion of the report recommendation that the plaintiffs challenge so they have waived that so to the extent there is any feeling here that these are invalid or erse something some way defective that is not before this or on that was before this court as i said is is just scope and so what the court is going to be doing here is not limited to this situation it's going to apply generally to scope questions broadly and inconsistent with the court's binding precedent we think earth and i haven't tried to to go through and do the catalog on that i suppose it's possible that you know a pure product liability things like that might be it is your honor did the claims in this case we think because they really do arise out of the credit in the claim is that you know you disclose part of the credit we're paying we didn't disclose the other current of the credit repaying those are so bound up in there that we think they're covered by both that's not an exhaustive catalogue your honor that there might be others reserve the remainder of my time thank you because the scope of the bank's arbitration agreements is limited to disputes that arise out relate to the agreement and the plaintiff's claims here do not arise out of really to be agreement so i want to start as any judge kelly was looking at earlier with the with the two thousand and fourteen agreement and we don't concede that the two thousand and fourteen agreement applies to everyone but two sons position is that it's a bit broader and and so we'll start there the first sentence of the agreement says that by accepting this agreement you agree that either you or we had our sole discretion can choose to have any dispute arising out of a relating to this agreement or a relationship resolved by finding arbitration that clause arising out of fall in the category of sort of the free standing pricing complaint because they all use the credit so that it's just so intertwined you can't separate them out absolutely answer the factual question first about eight percent of the finger customers don't use th at eight yes i don't use the fingerhut branded bank credit what the reason it doesn't collapse the claims is because you could take away the agreement the credit agreements here completely and their claims would be exactly the same and we do have that you're not you're not required to use the credit and their credit in order to purchase the products on finger you can use you can pay cash with a debit card you can use a regular credit card that's not the finger branded credit card to make those purchases and again the claims would be the same whether or not the plaintiffs had entered into those agreements the claims of be the same whether or not they had used that credit to make their purchases the claims of be the same whether regardless of whatever the terms of the credit were and i want to be absolutely clear here is that our claims are that regardless of whether you consider the interest rate this argument that by raising the profits you've built in additional interest goes away now it's just a compliant about where you just charge the charge too much for this i can may be need of credit who are attracted by advertising that they can pay for something on a monthly basis to the fingerhut site versus they're getting to a site where stuff is cheaper this is an intentional choice they use the phrase we're going to take advantage of consumers who have low credit scores import credit scores and we're going to send them to a web site that's going to charge them exorbitant prices for these items the argue the claims in the complaint is that by advertising and and targeting these products at these prices towards these consumers that's an undisclosed and usurious interest rate and i also again want to be perfectly clear that our view is that those those rates are you serious regardless of whether they're compiled on with the interest rate that the banks are charging so the banks are charging the twenty four point nine percent whether you count that or not the bluestone prices represent an undisclosed finance charge that's greater than the usury limits under any of the state's la scrutiny from the record it's undisputed from the testimony of blue stem's chief legal officer in her deposition that that the banks have absolutely no influence on how blue star sets its pricing how it what decisions it happens about that is completely unrelated to the banks credit agreement with the consumers so here we're looking at what is blue stamp doing it doesn't matter what the banks are doing at all for the players claims to said that a claim quote relates to a contract when the dispute occurs is a fairly direct result of the performance of contractual duties here in the contractual duties that are in the credit agreement are between the consumers in the banks about paying you know paying off their monthly charges you're paying their bills that kind of thing none of those contractual duties are at this are disputed in this case there's no allegation that the banks that anything wrong whatsoever i don't believe what you do with the things that could be a dispute but what doesn't negate the fact that the first sentence of the arbitration agreement says that by accepting this agreement you agree that either you or we can choose to have any dispute arising out of relating to the agreement and arbitration so to say that that language at the bottom is untethered from the first sentence is just to write out the first sentence of the agreement we know and you know you need to interpret the contract as it's written  you know we can talk about you know how we interpret arbitration agreements to some has brought up a lot of that we've argued about in the breeze but the end of the day what this court has always done was looked carefully at the language in the contract and not written encapsulated by this so there are things that still relate to arise out of the agreement that encapsulated by that language making clear that they're covered but this is not a dispute that arises out of really that remit so i think they're just trying to make that clear the  credit your honour's s of interest implies paying out or borrowing you've charged me too much for the use of this monday your honor it goes purposes of the truth in lending act and so on his own merits question about whether the plaintiffs have stated a claim and that's something up presumably be addressed by the district court on remand that's not before this court here well i think it's important because  i'm correct in this quality that you described described can only exist if you in effect borrow money from the defendant by paying out over time then s the one fifty nine ninety nine does not include the twenty four point nine percent interest being charged by the banks if that answers your question so yes so that's again you know the revolving credit account that's at issue it works just like a credit card dies you can use it or you pay a certain minimum if you don't pay it off then you're subject to the a p r of twenty four point nine percent that's on top of the increased prices that fingerhut offers and the other thing i'd like to note is that you can use the fingerhut revolving credit fingerhut branded revolving credit account some retailers are other than finger two you won't be charged this that the higher market price and you can imagine there are so for example some of the types of things you can use it tell a for you can use it to buy insurance you can imagine all sorts of disputes about say insurance that are that don't arise out of relate to the credit the bank but the merchant so it covers all waves are of rising out of the relationship between the customers like these plaintiffs in blue stone figure there is no textual gap between the first sentence in arising out of language not the relating to and the case made a big deal that the pencil is two forty eight fed third at eleven sixteen this agreement's both of them have the relating to language which in this binding precedent says as broad as possible in covers everything the moment touches on the last point is that councils not being accurate about the way this complaint is claiming first of all the complaint is limited only to people who have credit agreements and bought on credit it does not cover people who have cash that's appendix page seven paragraph twenty three an arm and expansion thirteen paragraph forty two this is an integrated