With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 1279, 1287 (10th Cir. 1997). See K.L. House Constr. Co. v. City of Albuquerque, 1978-NMSC-025, ¶ 8, 91 N.M. 492, 576 P.2d at 754 (Stating that “the courts only decide the threshold question of whether there is an agreement to arbitrate. If so, the court should order arbitration”). “Like other contracts ... [arbitration agreements] may be invalidated by ‘generally applicable contract defenses, such as fraud, duress, or uncon-scionability.’” Rent-A-Center, West, Inc. v. Jackson, 561 U.S. at 68, 130 S.Ct. 2772 (quoting Doctor’s Assocs., Inc. v. Casarotto, 517 U.S. 681, 687, 116 S.Ct. 1652, 134 L.Ed.2d 902 (1996)). See Cornoyer v. AT & T Mobility Servs., LLC, 2016 WL 6404853, at *8-11. Cf. K.L. House Construction Co. v. City of Albuquerque, 1978-NMSC-025, ¶ 8, 91 N.M. 492, 576 P.2d at 754 (<HOLDING>). LAW REGARDING GUARDIAN APPOINTMENTS AND

A: holding that an arbitration clause encompassing all disputes under a contract covers any dispute between the parties that has a significant relationship to the contract
B: holding that an action to compel arbitration accrues only when the respondent unequivocally refuses to arbitrate either by failing to comply with an arbitration demand or by otherwise unambiguously manifesting an intention not to arbitrate the subject matter of the dispute
C: holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract
D: holding that because the contract dispute between the parties in this case constitutes a justiciable matter that is cognizable in our trial courts our courts had subject matter jurisdiction
C.