Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 86-6 (1986) · Engineer Misstating Professional Achievements on Resume
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 Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Resume Submission to Employer Y
prevails over
Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Distinction
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Resume Implication Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Intentional Deception vs Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction Application
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Distinction
Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Engineer A Co-Designer Credit Omission Five Team Members Resume
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Employer Y Resume-Deceived Prospective Employer Obligation to Verify Qualifications vs Engineer A Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Resume Submission to Employer Y
Engineer A Co-Designer Credit Omission Five Team Members Resume vs Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
Engineer A Joint Patent Team Composition Disclosure Resume Employer Y vs Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition vs John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.
How comparable cases resolved the same tension
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance yields to Engineer A Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment. The yielding obligation ("John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance") 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) |
|---|---|---|---|
|
72-11
Statements in Employee Resume
|
Doe Selective Emphasis Competence Deception Boundary Managerial Resume Aerospace | Doe Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Violation | Doe Exaggeration-Emphasis Threshold Determination |
|
16-10
Public Health, Safety and Welfare-Former...
|
Engineer A Public Interest Testimony Obligation at Government Hearing | Engineer A Current Case Post-Employment Confidentiality Agreement Compliance Public Testimony | Engineer A Post-Employment Witness Participation Consideration; Public Safety at Risk from Unresolved Consumer Product Concern |
|
05-4
Failure to Disclose Full Impact of Development
|
Engineer A Present Case Relevance-Conditioned Traffic Noise Air Pollution Disclosure | Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary BER Present Case | Client vs. Public Interest Tension in Public Hearing Presentation |
|
05-5
Statements Made During Negotiations
|
Engineer A BER 86-6 Team Credit Sole Authorship Misrepresentation Violation | Engineer Doe BER 72-11 Resume Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Compliance | Doe Resume Emphasis Reframing - BER 72-11 |
|
75-5
Personal Misconduct
|
Engineer A Probationary Employment Context Fraud Aggravated Ethics Violation | Engineer A Criminal Conviction Employment Acceptance Honest Disclosure | Engineer A Whole-Person Integrity Scrutiny State |