Almost all of doctrinal studies on a mutual rescission of a contract describe it as a homogeneous type of act in law that may be distinguished from other acts in law by the specific rules of its estimation, which are either based on a statutory regulations or arise from the set rules of practice. The jurisdiction, in its turn, generally accepts the view that the mutual rescission of a contract is connected with the obligation to settle all the earlier performances according to illegal enrichment rules (art. 405 Civil Code) or with the obligation to return all the goods that the parties have received from each other on the basis of performance of the previously concluded contract according to the art. 494 Civil Code. While the categorization of a contract of mutual recession as an act leading to the abolishment of the effects of a legal relationship does not rouse objections, the view according to which such a contract is described as ontologically consistent and as a typical legal occurrence is methodologically wrong. This article attempts to prove the abovementioned thesis by showing that a mutual rescission of a contract understood as a homogeneous type of act in law does not exist and all of its abstract descriptions are prescriptively incorrect.