Mutuality

The MBE fact pattern usually hides the issue in the language of the promise: watch for “as much as I want,” “if I choose,” or a right to cancel at any time” — these “tells” signal an illusory promise. The answer typically hinges on whether some external limit binds the discretionary party: good faith, exclusive-dealing (Wood v. Lucy implies a best-efforts duty), or a UCC requirements/output term. An unfettered right to terminate is illusory, but a clause requiring reasonable notice (a defined period like 30 days works) supplies enough commitment to save it. Favor the answer that finds consideration when good faith fills the gap.

The classic trap is conflating mutuality with consideration generally — courts treat mutuality as just consideration applied to bilateral promises (Restatement (Second) § 79 drops it as a separate requirement), so “no consideration” is often the distractor when the better answer is “saved by an implied good-faith duty.” Don’t confuse this with acceptance: a conditional or non-committal acceptance is a counteroffer or rejection problem, not a mutuality defect. Memory hook: “a promise that promises nothing is no promise at all.”