Which of the following is NOT considered a mutuality of obligation in a contract?

• A. Both parties must fulfill their proposals
• B. Only one party is obligated to deliver
• C. Both parties must agree on the terms
• D. Obligations should be enforceable by law

Answer: (B)

In the context of contract law, mutuality of obligation signifies that both parties involved in a contract have corresponding duties that they need to fulfill. This principle is fundamental to forming a valid contract, as it ensures that there is a reciprocal commitment between the parties.

The notion that only one party is obligated to deliver contradicts the principle of mutuality. A contract typically requires that both parties undertake responsibilities; hence, if only one party has obligations while the other does not, it disrupts the balance needed for a legally enforceable agreement. This unidirectional obligation means there's no mutual agreement, which is essential for a contract to exist.

On the other hand, the other options reinforce the concept of mutuality. Both parties must fulfill their proposals and agree on the terms, and obligations ought to be enforceable by law, all highlight that a contract is a two-way street where commitments must be made on both sides. Therefore, stating that only one party is obligated simply does not fit within the framework of mutual obligations and is why it is not recognized as such in a contract.