complaint had been stated e d s had not sought and had told just leg that it would not seek an order compelling arbitration how reason is in limbo nothing is going to happen anywhere under that state of play i mean my one of my partners who specializes in international arbitration is aware of certain unreported situations occurring overseas where parties went to an armful tribunal and said look you know we have these claims we don't think these are the kind of subject arbitration and page nine forty six in so far as the captains were forcefully objecting to the arbitrator's deciding their dispute was first options which power it was objecting here one naturally would think they did not want the arbitrator's to have binding authority over them five fourteen u s and nine forty six so you know in first options the kaplan's filed a written memorandum objecting to the  and we said that in the notice of arbitration the panel then said well if there's an objection to jurisdiction we should decide that as a threshold matter so they did it we were not in the position of saying look we've checked the jurisdiction but you don't have yes we're following the rules the rules say they have authority to here's the difference if the aaa rules said the arbitrator shall have power to rule on his or her own jurisdiction and such ruling shall be binding on the part then you would be under the first options rule that's it not you know it's  was before any discovery it was without any evidence and in fact those findings were in a clue narry ward which e d s did not seek to confirm those findings and therefore have no effect whatsoever anyone after any evidence has come down did not find that all of the parties agreements were all interrelated in an ongoing series of into related transactions the second set of findings appear on page seventeen claims and no one ever found that the dispute over the series the financing agreement considered as the many complaint alleges it was  claim constitutes a factual contradiction in titling the court to strike were dismissed and amended pleading factual findings as true giving the factual findings the full amount of deference as a matter of law judge legge got it wrong and even the arbitrator's findings don't get e d s to where it needs to get to prove  an arbitration provision all three there were claims in simular that the defendant had breached argument breached agreements that predated the contract that arbitration cost is nicer to get those pre dated and they w going to enter into a later agreement doesn't say this is a master agreement that it is in anticipation of parties doing x y and z in the future just have a contract services agreement and a later dispute about financing that the financing agreement turns on anything to do with the new amended service agreement if you had a situation where the new or amended services agreement was in the cause of the dispute and the basis of  question here it's not crystal clear to me whether you're saying that in spite of the arbitration rules they had no power to decide or are you saying they decided it but they got it wrong party and it's a question of standard of review well i know but but so then for on on the issue of whether or not this dispute is subject to arbitration we have a decision but decided wrongly right and so the issue is decided by that group and we are simply to decide whether or not given the standards of deference that the courts are required to decide it wrong or right well except that there is no deference to the scope of the contract it's a legal matter that's i'm sorry test in the confusion well it is confusing if we say that it is forum has the power to that's all i'm saying ok that's what i'm saying its own jurisdiction including any objections with respect to the existence of a scope or of the legacy of the arbitration agreement and they continue to say quote the district court was obligated to honor the part clearly expressed intent the state order was just that order stating the litigation pending a decision from the tribunals about harvard that's on page two hundred fifty seven in response transaction then any dispute in connection with those transactions is art for go so at the end of the day the truth is what is decided after considering all of the evidence after the month long trial and what was it that the arbitrators unanimously decided that is has been submitted to the court and i would submit under first options this panel is required to accept those findings provide the technical services and support originally sought by power agency power agent was using the prospect of such a service as agreement to induce e t s to make an equity investment e d s would not have made an investment but for the simultaneous execution of the services agreement and the requirement that a substantial portion of the equity investment immediately return to e t s as a prepayment on the services agr it's that binding us back is not challenge here by a pound so it must be accepted as true and it is clearly supported by the record and that the initial investment and the services agreement were and it struck away intertwining part and parcel of the same still the long term services agreement and power agent was continuing to use that agreement and the prospect of a new or amended services agreement expanding the scope of disturbing because if it was a new one this court has consistently interpreted that as a broad clause and what the that and the services agreement itself was reputedly a part of the evidence that the arbitration beca revisions to it changes to its terms in terms of the pricing in terms of the length in terms of the i'm out of work that e d s was going to provide to e d s that was bound up in the entire transaction and so whether there would be services agreement that's why the arbitrators found in paragraph seventeen of their final ruling quote just as the e d s investment in the series would be around it was tied to the services agreement and the possible got about ten pages of evidence in our brief as to how these documents were intertwined with one another and as you will see what the evidence for the arbitrator's was that there was an ongoing discussion between e t s some power agent as to whether or not the payment terms would be changed whether it would be changed from a cost plus pricing to transactions based pricing whether e d s would do i dish in a work and therefore be paid more money but there was never any agreement that's why it's all part and parcel of the same transaction exactly the same as for example in the neil vs hardy's food case where there was a franchise agreement to get hard hamburger stands and one of the contracts related to buying the property and the other contract related to licensing the trademark and the hardys name well one contract would not have existed without the  other and consequently the first circuit and and the verses hardy's food case held that they were part and parcel of one transaction consequently the arbitration provision applies precisely the same thing existed here they were part and parcel of the time them to decide the question was whether it would be done on motion or after hearing of the evidence the arbitrators decided they could do it based on the evidence in front of them at that time and as you see from their final decision on that after of review standard review of standard review that's what we're talking about here first options is about the standard of review it is not about waiver it doesn't stay there can be a waiver you can't have an agreement by conduct to submit something to arbitration there has to be a clear and unmistakable agreement to submit arbitron guilty to the decision the arbitrators absent that it is de novo review that's all