Compl. Exhibit 27, p. 00800-5 (emphasis added)); 48 C.F.R. § 52.216-22 (1984). The government also states that the following contractual provision illustrates that its obligations were limited: The government reserves the right to undertake by government employees or others that same type of similar work as contracted herein, and to do so shall not be in violation of the terms of this contract nor construed as a termination in part or in total for the convenience of the government. Id. at 13 (quoting Compl. Exhibit 9 at 01010-4). It is true that in an indefinite-quantity contract, the government is obligated to order the stated minimum quantity. 48 C.F.R. § 16.504(a)(2). See also Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States, 262 U.S. 489, 492, 43 S.Ct. 592, 593, 67 L.Ed. 1086 (1923) (<HOLDING>). As the court in Mason v. United States, 222
holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration