Obligation-Conflict Resolution

Case 24-3 (2025) · Public Contracting Practices

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

No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.

Resolved without defeat

The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.

dissolution

Board conclusion 2: It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s con... compliance

Because Engineer A was new to City D and had received a specific complaint from Engineer B, the Board concluded that investigating the contracting practices was a proper exercise of diligence and faithful agency rather than disloyalty or overreach.

specification

Analytical conclusion 4: The principle of Loyalty as Faithful Agent to City D cann...

Given that City D's Engineer refused corrective action on a confirmed registration law violation, the Board concluded that faithful agency could not require Engineer A to conceal it, because loyalty is owed to the lawful mission of the employer rather than to a supervisor's personal preference.

specification

Analytical conclusion 1: The case demonstrates that 'faithful agency' is not owed...

Given that the City Engineer admitted the noncompliance but refused to fix it, the board concluded that Engineer A's duty of faithful agency runs ultimately to lawful, publicly-accountable process rather than to the supervisor personally, making deference conditional on legal compliance.

What the board concluded

It was not only ethical for Engineer B to complain to Engineer A, it was ethically required that Engineer B report his belief that statutory obligations were not being followed.
It was ethical for Engineer A to investigate City D’s contracting practices, both as a part of A’s own familiarization process and to follow up on Engineer B’s complaints.
Since the City D Engineer indicated they have no plans to change the contract arrangement with Firm Z, Engineer A is obligated to take appropriate action.

Recorded violations: Corrective Action Refusal violates Firm Z Engineers Registration Law Duty Corrective Action Refusal violates City D Engineer Registration Law Duty Non-Compliant Contract Award violates Firm Z Engineers Registration Law Duty Non-Compliant Contract Award violates City D Engineer Registration Law Duty