When state courts misconstrue or ignore a written agreement controlling an arbitrability clause governed by the FAA, if the provisions under §2 and §4 mandate the arbitration be retried in accordance with the controlling terms previously agreed upon

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When state courts misconstrue or ignore a written agreement controlling an arbitrability clause governed by the FAA, if the provisions under §2 and §4 mandate the arbitration be retried in accordance with the controlling terms previously agreed upon. (2) Whether this case presents the opportunity to clarify the requirements for invoking protections under 9 U.S.C. §10 and §11 by any court, within the intent of congress, in order to vacate, reverse, or modify an arbitration award as unconscionable after an arbitrator clearly exceeded the terms agreed as limiting the arbitration clause. (3) When a district judge compels arbitration but includes a “persuasive” advisory opinion instead of a mandatory stay in contravention to FAA §3, if that in. terference with litigant procedural rights on its own is grounds for appeal and retrial, or if litigants must endure the cost and time of a tainted arbitration to a final decision before they can rightfully appeal. il _