Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(“[A] promise is not good consideration unless there is mutuality of obligation....”); Kunzie, 330 S.W.3d at 483 (citing Baris v. Layton, 43 S.W.3d 390, 396 (Mo.App.E.D.2001)); Krusen v. Maverick Transp., 208 S.W.3d 339, 342 (Mo.App.S.D.2006). Mutuality of obligation “means that an obligation rests upon each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other; that is, -neither party is bound unless both are bound.” Sumners, at 102 S.W.3d at 41 (quoting Aden v. Dalton, 341 Mo. 454, 107 S.W.2d 1070, 1073 (1937)). Accordingly, in a bilateral contract, where no other consideration is found, Missouri courts scrutinize whether the obligations are, in fact, mutual. See, e.g., Greene v. Alliance Automotive, Inc., 435 S.W.3d 646 (Mo.App.W.D.2014) ; see also Sumners, 102 S.W.3d at 41
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding arbitration provision lacked mutuality of obligation because it allowed car dealership to exercise its primary remedy of selfhelp repossession without waiving arbitration of other disputes thereby allowing it to unilaterally divest itself of the promise to arbitrate
B. holding that purpose of stay pending arbitration is twofold it relieves the party entitled to arbitrate of the burden of continuing to litigate the issue while the arbitration process is ongoing and it entitles that party to proceed immediately to arbitration without the delay that would be occasioned by an appeal of the district courts order to arbitrate
C. holding that in the context of uninsured motorist disputes where the insurance endorsement provides for arbitration only upon the agreement of both parties the insureds could not unilaterally compel insurer to arbitrate
D. holding that parties to an arbitration agreement need not equally bind each other with respect to an arbitration agreement if they have provided each other with consideration beyond the promise to arbitrate
E. holding that a dispute arising out of an insurance policy was not covered by the arbitration provision in the parties separate premium payment agreement because if the party had intended to subject this dispute to the arbitration provision it could easily clearly and unequivocally have done so either by including an arbitration provision in the insurance policy itself or by adding to the above arbitration provision
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.