In this unlawful detainer action, with a breach of warranty of habitability cross-complaint, the trial court threatened to send the matter to judicial arbitration, after which the parties agreed to arbitration. Though the parties’ agreement wasn’t crystal clear on the point, this decision holds that they had agreed to contractual arbitration governed by CCP 1280 et seq., ending in a binding arbitration award, rather than judicial arbitration under CCP 1141.10, which results in an award that is subject to a trial de novo request. The arbitrator thought it a contractual arbitration since he didn’t file his award with the court, as required for a judicial arbitration. And the parties used a different arbitrator than the judicial arbitrator appointed by the trial court. Moreover, the court lacks authority to send an unlawful detainer action to judicial arbitration. CCP 1141.15. Parties may agree to contractual arbitration after a dispute has arisen and/or waive trial de novo and agree to a binding award from a judicial arbitrator. Here, the parties did one or the other. Even though only the parties’ attorneys signed the arbitration agreement, it was binding on the parties since they ratified their attorneys’ action, never objecting to arbitration in the trial court or on appeal.