Rockel v. Cherry Hill Dodge, 368 N.J.Super. 577 (App.Div 2004)
In Rockel, the Court analyzed the conflicting arbitration clauses and determined that the placement of the arbitration clause, combined with the conflicting provisions, warranted a denial of the motion because it was not clear that the party drafting the agreements, the dealership, intended to use the arbitration clause. In the present case there is a buyer’s order with no agreement and a retail order with an agreement. Had the defendant intended to rely upon the arbitration agreement there would have been one placed in the final agreement, the retail order which was the last agreement signed between the parties.