From time to time, an owner may hesitate between terminating a contract for convenience and not for reasons. Many homeowners use a termination clause as a safety valve if they do not know if there is sufficient reason to end it. If the owner chooses termination for convenience, he may be able to avoid the potential dispute that the termination was unreasonable for reasons. If there is no security guarantee in the respective (or perhaps more likely) security guarantees, this does not prevent the employer and the subcontractor from entering into a contract under exactly the same conditions as the existing subcontract: the freedom of contract applies. However, under these conditions, the subcontractor has the employer on the proverbial barrel and may attempt to renegotiate the terms. This is clearly not a situation to which a reasonable employer would be exposed, hence the prevalence of the requirement for guarantees of guarantees with progressive rights. In that case, therefore, it was the question of practicality after termination. What are the obligations for the parties in a situation where a commercial relationship is already broken: how are the innocent protected? Therefore, when considering the termination of a contractor for reasons that are not yet unexplained, the owner must first check whether he has fulfilled his own contractual obligations. Have all undisputed amounts been paid? Did the architect instruct the contractor or did he make the necessary decision on the request for an amendment order? Whatever the details of the dispute, any action and reaction of the owner should demonstrate that he has fulfilled his own contractual obligations in good faith; (2) complied with contractual dispute resolution procedures; and (3) timely and fairly considered claims by the contractor. If the owner is thus positioned, he may force the contractor to decide whether he completes the work during the settlement of the dispute or if he refuses to sue, thus offering the owner an independent basis for termination. However, note that only one case of one of the problems described above may not serve as a reason for terminating the contract.
On the contrary, for reasons, dismissal is usually reserved for an essential problem. Convenience termination is so important to the federal government that, although the federal treaty does not expressly reserve the right to terminate the government, the courts read that right by law in the contract. [ii] Today, termination clauses are also found in most commercial construction contracts that grant owners and/or general contractors rights similar to those of the federal government.