Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 98-3 (1998) · Use Of CD-ROM For Highway Design
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
Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
prevails over
Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
What the board concluded
- It was not ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented.
Recorded violations:
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
Competency Shortcut Purchase violates Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design yields to Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design. The yielding obligation ("Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
15-12
Engineer’s Obligation to Consider Feasible Options
|
Engineer A Waterfront Hearing Relevance Pertinence Judgment | Complete Comparative Design Alternatives Presentation Engineer A Route | -- |
|
86-4
Modification of Signed and Sealed Plans by...
|
Engineer B Public Welfare Paramount Subdivision Plan Integrity Safety Obligation | Subdivision Development Client Sealed Plan Transfer Non-Authorization of Successor Alteration | Engineer A Original Plans Transferred to Client and Successor |
|
23-4
Acknowledging Errors in Design
|
Engineer T Standard of Care Compliance Ethical Sufficiency Determination | Engineer T Proactive Design Alternatives Presentation Pre-Design Selection | Engineer T Missed Opportunity Without Ethical Violation |
|
90-5
Failure To Report Information Affecting...
|
BER-84-5 Engineer A Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment | BER-84-5 Engineer A Passive Acquiescence to Client Cost-Driven Safety Override | BER 84-5: Client Cost-Driven Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative; BER 84-5: Public Safety at Risk from Dangerous Construction Without Oversight |
|
21-11
Public Welfare at What Cost?
|
Engineer W Transparent Advocacy Substitution Shadyvale DOT Project | Engineer W Non-Aiding Policy Circumvention Through Design Manipulation Obligation | DOT Policy Circumvention Design Manipulation — Engineer W to Engineer Intern D |