This agreement to arbitrate "any disputes arising in connection with this agreement and/or any amendments to this agreement" does not suggest waiver of the right to bring a suit in court on a statutory claim. In that regard, this arbitration clause is distinguishable from those addressed in Curtis and Griffin. InCurtis, the language unmistakably specified that plaintiff waived his right to a judicial forum and jury trial. 413 N.J. Super. at 37-38.In Griffin, the clause included language referencing statutory claims. 411 N.J. Super. at 518.
We also conclude that the agreement to arbitrate contractual claims, while sufficiently clear when read alone, is not at all clear when the agreement is read as a whole. The contract does not articulate or explain the relationship between the clause addressing alternate dispute resolution under the New Home Warranty Act and the arbitration clause. Read together, these provisions are so confusing that they "confound[] any clear understanding of the parties' undertaking" with respect to resolution of disputes. See Rockel v. Cherry Hill Dodge, 368 N.J. Super. 577, 583 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 181 N.J. 545 (2004).Accordingly, we conclude that it was error to compel arbitration of the contractual and negligence claims as well.
