Stinger’s claim. Stinger claims that the Agreement has the required mutuality of obligation to be an enforceable contract. This Court reviews an entry of judgment on the pleadings de novo. Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir.1998). “Mutuality of obligation is essential to the validity of an executory bilateral contract ... mutuality is absent when only one of the contracting parties is bound to perform, and the other party remains entirely free to choose whether or not to perform, and the rights of the parties exist at the option of one only.” First Sarasota Corp. v. a manufacturer to provide any product or does not require the distributor to purchase any product lacks mutuality and is unenforceable. Big Cola Corp. v. World Bottling Co., 134 F.2d 718, 722 (6th Cir.1943) (<HOLDING>); Curtiss Candy Co. v. Silberman, 45 F.2d 451,
holding a distributionlicense agreement unenforceable for lack of mutuality where the distributors only obligation was to maintain a record of the sales and remit royalties thereon but was not obligated to sell any of the product 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 holding that an alleged oral agreement between a manufacturer and a distributor lacked mutuality of obligation and was enforceable where the distributor had no obligation to sell any specific quantity and no obligation to meet any quotas