Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 90-6 (1990) · Use Of Cadd System
Professional obligations conflict, and the board applies no fixed rule for which one wins.
Each resolution is recorded as three edges:
competesWith (the tension),
prevailsOver (the obligation the board allowed to win in this case), and
defeasibleUnder (the situation under which the yielding obligation gives way).
The same tension is then traced across comparable cases, where its resolution shifts with context.
Hover any obligation or state to see its definition; click to open it in OntServe.
How this case resolved it
Featured
BER Code Prevailing Practice Conformance
prevails over
Engineer B Detailed Review Sealing Subordinate Work
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer CADD Document Sealing Review Adequacy
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer B Detailed Review Sealing Subordinate Work vs Engineer B Responsible Charge Supervisory Seal
What the board concluded
- It was ethical for Engineer A, a registered professional engineer to sign and seal documents he prepared using a CADD system.
- It was ethical for Engineer B, a registered professional engineer, to sign and seal documents which are the work of others using a CADD system working under his direction and control.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer B Detailed Review Sealing Subordinate Work yields to BER Code Prevailing Practice Conformance. The yielding obligation ("Engineer B Detailed Review Sealing Subordinate Work") recurs across cases; the obligation that overrides it and the context under which it yields differ case by case. This is the case-law move: not a single rule, but a family of context-indexed resolutions.
| Case | Obligation that prevailed | Yielding obligation | Context (defeasibleUnder) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
86-2
Signing and Sealing Plans Not Prepared by Engineer
|
Engineer A Responsible Charge Detailed Review Before Sealing Violation | Engineer A Subordinate Competence Confidence Non-Substitution Sealing Review | Engineer A Competence-Trust Substitution for Verification |
|
22-8
Independence of Peer Reviewer
|
Engineer B Peer Review Notification | Engineer B Confidentiality Review Scope | -- |
|
86-4
Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by...
|
Engineer B Successor Engineer Prior-Engineer Communication Before Redesign | Engineer B Discharged Engineer Review Without Notification Permissibility Case 82-5 | Engineer A Seal Retained on Engineer B Altered Grading Plans; Engineer A Seal Retained on Engineer B Altered Public Improvement Plans; Engineer B Undocumented Redesign on Engineer A Plans |
|
93-3
Appropriate Notification And Review Of...
|
Engineer B Client Confidentiality Instruction Faithful Agent Compliance BER Case | Engineer B Peer Review Notification and Consent Fulfillment | Client Covert Review Instruction to Engineer B; Notification Duty vs. Faithful Agent Duty Conflict; Peer Review Confidentiality Agreement Absent — Engineer A Design Review |
|
79-7
Review of Original Engineer's Design
|
Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility | Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation | Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review; Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State; Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection |