In Buckeye Check Cashing,Inc. ,v.Cardegna et al,the case was heard in front of the U.S.Supreme Court to determine whether the court or the arbitrator should decide the issues of a case when illegality in relation to a contract is claimed.What was the ruling?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)The Court concluded that when an agreement as a whole,but not specifically its arbitration provisions,is challenged,the arbitration provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract,and the challenge to the legality of the contract itself should therefore be considered by an arbitrator,not a court.
B)The Court concluded that when an agreement as a whole,but not specifically its arbitration provisions,is challenged,the arbitration provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract,and the challenge to the legality of the contract itself should therefore be considered by an arbitrator,not a court.
C)The Court concluded that when an agreement as a whole,but not specifically its arbitration provisions,is challenged,the arbitration provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract,and the challenge to the legality of the contract itself should therefore be considered by an arbitrator,not a court.
D)The Court concluded that when an agreement as a whole,but not specifically its arbitration provisions,is challenged,the arbitration provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract,and the challenge to the legality of the contract itself should therefore be considered by an arbitrator,not a court.
E)The Court concluded that when an agreement as a whole,but not specifically its arbitration provisions,is challenged,the arbitration provisions are enforceable apart from the remainder of the contract,and the challenge to the legality of the contract itself should therefore be considered by an arbitrator,not a court.