Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
that the letter agreements do not constitute enforceable contracts as they are unenforceable for want of mutuality. As set forth above, Connecticut choice of law principles direct that the law of Singapore govern the contract claims. Under Singapore law, mutuality of obligation is necessary for a contract to be enforceable. It is generally accepted in the common law of this country that agreements that impose no specific purchase obligation on a distributor cannot obligate a manufacturer to sell to the distributor. Billings Cottonseed, Inc. v. Albany Oil Mill, Inc., 178 Ga.App. 825, 328 S.E.2d 426, 430 (1985). In such cases, mutuality of obligation is lacking, and the agreement is therefore unenforceable. Kraftco Corporation v. Kolbus, 1 Ill.App.3d 635, 274 N.E.2d 153, 156 (1971) . “An agreement that does not expressly or
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. 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
C. recognizing that a divorce decree obligation to hold an exspouse harmless from a debt creates an obligation between the debtor and the exspouse separate from any obligation the debtor may owe to the creditor
D. holding that there may be an obligation to defend under an insurance policy even though there is no obligation to indemnify
E. holding that insurance obligation was primary to indemnity obligation
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.