Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 98-3 (1998) · Use Of CD-ROM For Highway 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 Competence Boundary Facilities Design
prevails over
Engineer A Tool Substitution CD-ROM Design
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
What the board concluded
- It was not ethical for Engineer A to offer facilities design and construction services under the facts presented.
Recorded violations:
Competency Shortcut Purchase violates Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Offering
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Boundary CD-ROM Facilities
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Self-Certification CD-ROM
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Misrepresentation Avoidance
Unauthorized Service Offering violates Engineer A Competence Boundary Facilities Design