Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): tail wagging the dog. Certainly contracting parties such as the parties in this case, who entered an agreement to refer “all claims, disputes, and matters arising out of or relating to this Agreement” to an arbitrator, intended this definition to include issues of contractual validity. However, if the court were to accept the Plaintiffs proposed application of the law, then any party who disputed the validity of the contract and was opposed to arbitration could file 22 (11th Cir.2007) (“Thus, even a party’s claim that a usurious finance charge renders the contract as a whole void ab initio is for the arbitrator, not the court, to decide, and is no defense to a motion to compel arbitration.”); Lucey v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2007 WL 3052997 at *4 n. 6 (D.N.J. Oct. 18, 2007) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, Plaintiff has not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants (B) holding that because respondents challenged a contract broadly without challenging the arbitration clause specifically challenge must be considered by an arbitrator (C) holding an entire arbitration clause is void and arbitration cannot be compelled where contract contained unconscionable clause and has a nonseverability clause (D) recognizing exception to general rule that disputes arising under contract with valid arbitration clause are referred to arbitrator (E) holding that where a contract containing an arbitration clause is challenged as unconscionable those disputes should first be resolved by an arbitrator
Output (English): holding that an arbitration clause was not unconscionable because it did not unreasonably favor the defendants