E-Z Cash attempts to distinguish this case from that in Showmethemoney, 342 Ark
(a) A written agreement to submit any existing controversy to arbitration arising between the parties bound by the terms of the writing is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract.
(b) A written provision to submit to arbitration any controversy thereafter *440 arising between the parties bound by the terms of the writing is valid, enforceable, and irrevocable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract; provided, that this subsection shall have no application to personal injury or tort matters, employer-employee disputes, nor to any insured or beneficiary under any insurance policy or annuity contract.
On application of a party showing an agreement described in § 16-108-201 and the opposing party’s refusal to arbitrate, the court shall order the parties to proceed with arbitration, but if the opposing party denies the existence of the agreement to arbitrate, the court shall proceed summarily to the determination of the issue so raised and shall order arbitration if found for the moving party; otherwise, the application shall be denied.
Clearly, under the foregoing statutory provisions, a party resisting arbitration may dispute the existence or validity of the agreement to arbitrate. Showmethemoney, 342 Ark. 112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 .
This court has held that arbitration is a matter of contract between parties. See May Constr. Co. v. Benton Sch. Dist. No. 8, 320 Ark. 147 , 895 S.W.2d 521 (1995). There, this court check out the post right here stated:
The contract is based upon the mutual promises made by the parties; and if the promise made by either does not by its terms fix a real *441 liability upon one party, then such promise does not form a consideration for the promise of the other party
The same rules of construction and interpretation apply to arbitration agreements as apply to agreements generally, thus we will seek to give effect to the intent of the parties as evidenced by the arbitration agreement itself. 5 Am. Jur.2d § 14; and see Prepakt Concrete Co. v. Whitehurst Bros., 261 Ark. 814 , 552 S.W.2d 212 (1977). It is generally held that arbitration agreements will not be construed within the strict letter of the agreement but will include subjects within the spirit of the agreement. Doubts and ambiguities of coverage should be resolved in favor of arbitration. 5 Am.Jur.2d § 14; Uniform Laws Annotated, Vol. 7, Uniform Arbitration Act, § 1, Note 53 (and cases cited therein).
Id. at 149, 895 S.W.2d at 523 (quoting Wessell Bros. Foundation Drilling Co. v. Crossett Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 52, 287 Ark. 415 , 418, 701 S.W.2d 99 , 101 (1985)). Moreover, the construction and legal effect of a written contract to arbitrate are to be determined by the court as a matter of law. Hart v. McChristian, 344 Ark. 656 , 42 S.W.3d 552 (2001); May Constr. Co. v. Thompson, 341 Ark. 879 , 20 S.W.3d 345 (2000).
Specifically, the fact that the check cashier had the right to seek redress in a court of law, while the customer was limited strictly to arbitration, demonstrated a lack of mutuality
112 , 27 S.W.3d 361 , by arguing that all of the essential elements of a valid contract are present in their agreement. In Showmethemoney, this court held that the essential elements of a contract include: (1) competent parties, (2) subject matter, (3) legal consideration, (4) mutual agreement, and (5) mutual obligations. See also Foundation Telecomms., Inc. v. Moe Studio, Inc., 341 Ark. 231 , 16 S.W.3d 531 (2000). This court ultimately held that the arbitration agreement at issue in Showmethemoney was invalid because of a lack of mutual obligations. This court explained:
A contract to be enforceable must impose mutual obligations on both of the parties thereto. “. [M]utuality of contract means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other; that is, neither party is bound unless both are bound.” A contract, therefore, which leaves it entirely optional with one of the parties as to whether or not he will perform his promise would not be binding on the other.