With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 211, 219 (5th Cir.2003) (recognizing the conundrum that: “[WJhere the very' existence of an agreement is challenged, ordering arbitration could result in an arbitrator deciding that no agreement was ever formed. Such an outcome' would be a statement that the arbitrator never had any authority to decide the issue.”) (emphasis in original). Several cases not involving delegation clauses, however, indicate that even issues as to contract formation can be delegated to the arbitrator. See, e.g., Granite Rock Co. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 561 U.S. 287, 299, 130 S.Ct. 2847, 2858, 177 L.Ed.2d 567 (2010) (“absent a valid provision specifically committing such disputes to an arbitrator,” the contract-formation issue was for the court to decide); In re Morgan Stanley & Co., 293 S.W.3d at 189 (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added) (citing In re Weekley Homes,

A: holding that while the determination of the scope of an arbitration agreement is for the court the enforcement of pleading requirements before the arbitrator is a procedural matter for the arbitrator
B: holding that mental capacity to enter into an arbitration agreement is an issue for the court to decide but noting that we have concluded that whether an arbitration agreement binds a nonsignatory is a gateway matter to be determined by the court rather than the arbitrator unless the parties dearly and unmistakably provide otherwise
C: holding that an exception to the rule that a nonsignatory cannot invoke arbitration exists when under agency or related principals the relationship between the nonsignatory and a signatory is sufficiently close that the only way to avoid eviscerating the arbitration agreement is to allow the nonsignatory to compel arbitration
D: holding that all issues other than arbitrability such as fraud in the inducement are for the arbitrator to decide after a court has determined that the arbitration agreement is valid
B.