Read in this manner, the sentence implies that only the employee is bound to arbitrate. The rules of contract interpretation require the Court to construe the writing as a whole. Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202(2). Reading paragraph 16 as a whole, the Court finds that the first sentence binds both parties to arbitrate their controversies and claims concerning the employment relationship and that the last sentence merely emphasizes that the employee has no other recourse but arbitration. This interpretation, which gives an effective meaning to all the terms, is preferred. Id., § 203(a). The Court finds that both parties provided consideration in that they both agreed to be bound by arbitration and that there is, therefore, mutuality of obligation. Cf. Blair, 283 F.3d at 603 (<HOLDING>). Plaskett claims that the consideration is
holding that a contract need not have mutuality of obligation as long as it is supported by consideration holding a cancellation clause that releases both parties from their obligations does not render contract void for lack of mutuality of obligation holding that a contract without a minimum quantity term is unenforceable for lack of consideration and mutuality holding mutuality of obligation is essential to the formation of a bilateral contract 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