This article examines the rule governing the client's unjustified refusal to perform a contract. Given the general prohibition on unilateral refusal to perform a contract, the client's right to refuse a contract in the absence of any breach by the contractor deserves special attention. The existence of this rule in the law stems from the specifi c nature of contractual relationships, in which the client is the owner of the item transferred to the contractor for processing or modifi cation, and acquires ownership of the newly created item. The right to unjustifi ed refusal allows the client to freely determine the legal fate of their property even in the presence of a concluded contract, which they are seemingly obligated to comply with. Since the client's right to terminate a contract without justifi cation is an exception to the principle of contract compliance, the legislator has imposed certain property encumbrances on the client in the event of such refusal. This decision appears entirely fair, given that the contractor is typically an entrepreneur. The article analyzes similar provisions in German and French legislation, leading to the conclusion that this rule is relevant to civil transactions. The author examines the issue of whether the norm is mandatory or optional. Despite the clause "unless otherwise provided by the contract," the author concludes that the optionality of the norm should be limited: the parties cannot exclude the customer's right to terminate the contract without justifi cation or increase the statutory limit for damages, but they can change the procedure for exercising the right of termination or provide for other consequences of contract termination. This solution allows for a balance of interests between the customer and the contractor.