Contractor's Premature Refusal Excuses Client from Termination Deadline and Triggers General Non-Performance Rules

In a work contract dispute where the contractor definitively refused to continue the work, the court held that such premature refusal by the contractor entitles the client to proceed under the rules for non-performance (Art. 107 para. 2 OR), bypassing the need to first invoke the specific termination clause for work contracts (Art. 366 para. 1 OR). The court reasoned that the contractor's clear and unwarranted declaration of non-performance effectively excuses the client from setting a deadline, and in cases where the client chooses to claim damages for non-performance while upholding the contract, the calculation of damages must adhere to the principles established for breach of contract generally (Art. 97 OR), obligating the client to compensate the contractor for any completed, usable work performed up to that point.