With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 927 (7th Cir.1986). Although the court in Tor-rington decided which of two arbitration provisions applied to the parties' underlying dispute, neither party argued that this was an issue for the arbitrator and not for the court to decide. Further, the union originally sought to litigate in court the underlying dispute, arguing that none of the arbitration provisions applied, presenting the court with a clear substantive arbitrability problem. Finally, the court found that the arbitration procedure that the union (subsequently) argued should be used clearly and expressly did not apply to the underlying dispute. See id. at 931. This distinguishes that provision from the regular arbitration provision in the present case. Cf. PaineWebber, Inc. v. Hartmann, 921 F.2d 507, 513 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Because we hold that the District Court

A: holding that the plain language of the parties contract which limited the cases eligible for submission to arbitration rendered the underlying dispute not arbitrable
B: holding that the plain language of the warranty reveals no clear intent by the parties to refer to arbitration disputes over contract duration
C: holding that a settlement agreement is an arbitrable subject when the underlying dispute is arbitrable
D: holding that when a contract is unambiguous the court will enforce the plain meaning of the contract as the intention of the parties
A.