Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 11-12 (2011) · Reviewing Work of Another Engineer and Thereafter Performing Engineering Services for Client
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.
specification
Analytical conclusion 4: Regarding Q104, Engineer A was not obligated to recuse hi...
Because Engineer A's position as Town Engineer carried an affirmative duty to review engineers working in his jurisdiction, the board concluded he was not required to recuse himself merely because his firm could perform similar work, locating the ethical failure instead in his later conversion of the review into a business opportunity.
What the board concluded
- It is ethical for Engineer A to contact Smithtown and advise the town that Engineer B’s performance on the contract did not meet the standards as outlined in Engineer B’s contract with the town.
- It would not be ethical for Engineer A to offer and agree to perform the work for Smithtown.