Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 04-11 (2004) · Advertising — Use of Business Cards—P.E. Designation
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 D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Situation 4 - Third-Party Social Context Business Card Redistribution
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition
prevails over
Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Situation 1 Mailing Address Omission Business Card
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Sit1-BusinessCard-NoAddress-NoLicensureStates
Engineer A Situation 1 Truthful Advertising Obligation Violation
prevails over
Antitrust Commercial Speech Tempering of Advertising Ethics Recognition
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineering Advertising Antitrust Legal Framework
Business Development Representative Firm Licensure Prerequisite Ethical Activity
prevails over
Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution
- Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Card Distribution No Violation
prevails over
Engineer A Multi-State Advertising State Registration Law Conformance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Sit4-BusinessCard-StateB-SocialDistribution
- Sit4-ThirdPartyRedistribution-StateC
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Situation 1 Physical Address Omission Ethics Violation vs Engineer A Situation 1 Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Business Card
Engineer A Situation 3 Non-Engineering Services Scope Maintenance State B vs Engineer A Situation 3 Office-Licensure Differentiation Business Card
Engineer A Situation 4 Social Context Non-Violation Recognition vs Engineer D Situation 4 Secondhand Information Complaint Filing Restraint
What the board concluded
- Situation 1. Engineer A's actions were not consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
- Situation 2. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
- Situation 3. Engineer A's actions were consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure yields to Engineer D Situation 4 Improper Complaint Filing Prohibition. The yielding obligation ("Engineer D Improper Complaint Filing Judgment Failure") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
79-7
Review of Original Engineer's Design
|
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Via Complaint Filing | Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Engineer B | Engineer A Self-Serving Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer |
|
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 |
|
21-12
Duty to Report – Material Information
|
Safety Obligation Invoked Engineer Intern A Bridge Defect Five Year History | Engineer Intern A Materiality Judgment Restraint Present Case Bridge Inspection | Engineer Intern A Materiality Judgment Incompetence State; Engineer Intern A Selective Information Omission in Report to Supervisor; Engineer Intern A Unverified Scope of Structural Risk |
|
03-6
Employment—Duty To Disclose Revocation Of...
|
Engineer F Non-Engineering License Disciplinary History Employment Disclosure Failure | Engineer F Adjudicated Misconduct Employment Application Disclosure Failure | BER 75-5 Whole-Person Integrity Standard Activation; BER 97-11 vs Present Case Allegation-Adjudication Threshold Differential; Engineer F Adjudicated Wrongdoing Disclosure Obligation; Engineer F Cross-Domain License Revocation Non-Disclosure; Engineer F Employer Trust Undermined by Initial Non-Disclosure; Engineer F Employment Application Narrow Question Omission; Engineer F Fire Protection Safety Domain Heightened Materiality; Engineer F Narrow Application Question Exploitable Omission; Engineer F Non-PE License Revocation Integrity Relevance; Engineer F Privacy vs. Material Omission Tension |
|
92-2
Advertising - Misstating Credentials
|
Engineer A Discipline-Specific Misrepresentation Internal Escalation Firm Principal | Engineer A Inadvertent Licensure Violation Collegial Counsel Before Reporting Discipline Error | Engineer A Obligation to Escalate After Failed Initial Notification |