Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 94-8 (1994) · Competence To Perform Foundation 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 Objective Credential Investigation Before Peer Competence Challenge Obligation
prevails over
Engineer A Direct Confrontation of Engineer B Recommending Withdrawal Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation
Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation
prevails over
Engineer B PE License Non-Sufficiency Ethics Code Higher Standard Recognition Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Chemical Engineer Structural Footing Assignment Incompetence
Engineer A Direct Confrontation of Engineer B Recommending Withdrawal Obligation
prevails over
Engineer A Client and Authority Escalation Upon Engineer B Refusal Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Peer Competence Challenge Reporting Obligation Activated
Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation
prevails over
Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Sub-Delegation Infeasibility Recognition Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Sole-Purpose Structural Footing Engagement Precluding Delegation
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Construction Contractor Degree-to-Task Alignment Verification Before Engineer B Retention Obligation vs Engineer B Cross-Discipline Structural Footing Assignment Acceptance Refusal Obligation
Engineer A Client and Authority Escalation Upon Engineer B Refusal Obligation vs Engineer A Project Withdrawal If Competence Concerns Unmet Obligation
What the board concluded
- It would be unethical for Engineer B to perform the design of the structural footings as part of the facility.
- Engineer A has an ethical responsibility to question Engineer B's competency and report his concerns to the contractor.