Hello.  Thanks.  First, if you want to chat with me, please reply at my Talk Page - not at yours.  I check my Talk Page every day and see the new postings.  I certainly do not check your Talk Page every day to see if you posted anything there.  My Talk Page is at this link here > User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro.  Second, per Wikipedia rules, I am not giving any legal advice at all, just trying to answer a semantics question.  Third, remember that the situation and laws are different all over the place.  I am in the USA and answering as such ... I have no idea where you are located, and if it is within or outside the USA.  So, all of that being said ... I can now answer your latest follow-up questions.  Let me address the first part of your question, which states: "one is free to terminate such a contract for whatever reasons are permitted or not forbidden within that contract."  In a one word answer, yes.  But, the way that your follow-up question is worded, it seems like you are mixing apples and oranges  that is, confusing very different things.  I guess I am not sure what you mean by "terminating" a contract?  The contract itself usually has dates within it, such as "This contract runs from January 1, 2008, and will expire on December 31, 2008."  So, you never "terminate" that contract  it just "dies" on December 31, 2008.  If you want to "break" ("stop") the contract before the ending date of December 31, that's a different story - and it would depend on why (what reasons) you want to not finish out the whole year-contract.  As you refer to, some contracts will have explicit terms within them that delineate when/where/how/why the contract may be terminated.  Some contracts have no dates in them, correct.  And, within them, there will be (there should be) certain reasons as to when / how / why either party may "end" the contract.  But, in a one-word simplistic answer ... yes, one is free to terminate such a contract for whatever reasons are permitted or not forbidden within that contract.  Let me address the second part of your question, which states: "one cannot legitimately accuse the contractee of 'insubordination' ..."  Again, you are mixing apples and oranges.  So, it is a hard question to answer.  In a simple answer, the answer is ... maybe yes and maybe no.  If any terms of the contract deal with "insubordination", then - yes, one party may certainly accuse the other party of insubordination.  For example, a contract may state: "If Party A does not report to the work site prior to 9 AM, that will be considered insubordination" ... or "If Party B does not submit the appropriate paper work at the end of the day, that action will be considered insubordination" ... or something like that.  So, if the terms of the contract deal with insubordination, then - yes, one party may certainly accuse the other of insubordination.  Now, let's say that the contract does not in any way mention insubordination.  (This is probably the likely case that you are referring to.)  Then, in terms of semantics (that is, language and wording) ... then, no  one party may not accuse the other of insubordination.  But, really, they can accuse the other party of breaching the terms of the contract ... that is, not meeting up with their end of the bargain in the contract.  So, the real and correct words (semantics) would be that one party accuses the other of either: breaching (breaking) the contract ... or ... not complying with the terms and consitions of the contract ... or words like that.  Those essentially mean the same thing as the concept of insubordination (not doing what you are supposed to do and expected to do, when asked to do so).  But, you just would not use the word insubordination.  You would use the word "violating our contract".  But, in spirit, it all means the same thing.  So, if I was the party to the contract .... and the other party accused me of "insubordination" ... and our contract terms never mention insubordination ... then, I would take that to mean that the other party is accusing me of not adhering to the terms of the contract and he is simply using the wrong jargon ... but he may (or may not) be wrong in principal and substance.  In other words, just because the other party used the wrong/incorrect word (he improperly used the incorrect word of insubordination), that doesn't change the fact that maybe, yes, I did do something wrong and I did go against the contract.  I hope this all helps.  Please reply at my Talk Page.  Maybe if you make your question a little more clearer and detailed, I can craft a better answer.  Thanks.  (  )