With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the dispute at issue, and we do not see how Leroy’s claims are completely independent of the Purchase Agreement so that they could be maintained without reference to it. See Marshall, 909 S.W.2d at 899; Arnold Oil Co., 30 S.W.3d at 498. Moreover, the arbitration provision here is broad, encompassing “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to” the Purchase Agreement. The financing of Leroy’s vehicle is a matter that arises out of and relates to Leroy’s agreement to purchase the vehicle, as reflected in the Purchase Agreement. But for Leroy’s purchase, there would have been no relationship between the parties and no financing transaction that is the basis of Leroy’s claims. See In re Conseco Fin. Servicing Corp., 19 S.W.3d 562, 570 (Tex.App.-Waco 2000, orig. proceeding) (<HOLDING>); Gerwell v. Moran, 10 S.W.3d 28, 32-33

A: holding that broad arbitration provision in 1993 partnership agreement encompassed claims arising out of 1999 agreement to assign partnership interest
B: holding that antitrust claims were arbitrable under a broad arbitration clause even though the claims concerned matters beyond the making of a particular contract between the parties and the performance of its terms
C: holding that broad arbitration provision encompassed statutory and tort claims not based on the formation negotiation terms or performance of contract
D: holding claims based on title vii subject to arbitration
C.