In Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 83, the appellate court reviewed a trial court ruling that there was no agreement to arbitrate the dispute at issue. The purchase agreement provided: "'If a controversy arises with respect to the subject matter of this Purchase Agreement or the transaction contemplated herein (including but not limited to the parties' rights to . . . the payment of commissions as provided herein), Buyer, Seller and Agent agree that such controversy shall be settled by final, binding arbitration . . . .'" ( Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 86.) The statutory notice provision followed, including places for buyer's and seller's initials. The buyers initialed the provision; the sellers did not. The trial court denied arbitration on the ground "'there is not a binding, enforceable agreement to arbitrate the controversy between plaintiffs, defendants and petitioner MARCUS . . . .'" ( Id. at p. 87) In a motion for reconsideration based alternatively on Code of Civil Procedure sections 1008 and 473, Marcus argued the listing agreement contained an arbitration clause that the sellers and Marcus had both initialed. The trial court denied the motion. In its review, the appellate court began by emphasizing the language of section 1281.2 requiring the court to order arbitration "'if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists . . . .'" ( Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 88.) The court noted that "'the right to arbitration depends upon contract; a petition to compel arbitration is simply a suit in equity seeking specific performance of that contract. ' There is no public policy in favor of forcing arbitration of issues the parties have not agreed to arbitrate. It follows that when presented with a petition to compel arbitration, the trial court's first task is to determine whether the parties have in fact agreed to arbitrate the dispute." ( Id. at pp. 88-89.) The court held, "Applying general California contract law to this fact pattern, we conclude that although the buyers offered to include the arbitration provision as part of the purchase agreement, the sellers did not accept that offer. The terms of an offer must be '"met exactly, precisely and unequivocally for its acceptance to result in the formation of a binding contract . . . .;and a qualified acceptance amounts to a new proposal or counteroffer putting an end to the original offer . . . ."' None of the subsequent counteroffers between the buyer and seller mentioned the arbitration provision. Thus, 'Buyer, Seller and Agent' did not agree to submit controversies to binding arbitration, as the arbitration clause requires." ( Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Brokerage Co. v. Hock Investment Co., supra, 68 Cal.App.4th at p. 89.)