With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agreement at issue was supported by consideration because it restricted the defendant’s right to amend or terminate the agreement once an employee’s claim had accrued. Sisneros, 2006-NMCA-102, ¶ 35. Thus, in Sisneros, the restriction on the defendant’s right to amend provided consideration for the agreement making it “in no way illusory}.]” Id. {34} Defendants argue that under both Texas and New Mexico law the agreement was not illusory and was therefore supported by consideration. Having determined that Flemma’s agreement to arbitrate pursuant to the Program should be construed under Texas law, we limit our discussion of the issue to the law of Texas. Under Texas law, mutuality of obligation is sufficient consideration for a contract. See In re Halliburton Co., 80 S.W.3d at 569 (<HOLDING>). So long as the right is restricted, one party

A: holding that an employee was required to arbitrate employment disputes under arbitration policies that the employer reserved the right to publish from time to time
B: holding that the agreement was not illusory because it was supported by consideration insofar as the employee and employer were equally bound by a promise to arbitrate disputes
C: 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
D: holding that an agreement to arbitrate is illusory if as here the employer can unilaterally modify the contract
B.