Statements Made During Negotiations

Case 134 Source
Back to Case

Document Structure

4

Sections

4/4

With Embeddings

100%

Coverage

384D

Dimensions
Embeddings use 384D local model for precedent matching
Document Sections

Content Length
114 chars
HTML Length
114 chars
Plain Text Length
114 chars
Embedding Dimension
384 Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
It was unethical for Engineer A to make the statement to Engineer B in an effort to move the negotiations forward.

Content Length
5072 chars
HTML Length
5227 chars
Plain Text Length
5070 chars
Embedding Dimension
384 Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-03-02 23:20
Content Preview
The obligation of professional engineers to be honest, truthful, and forthcoming in their professional dealings is a critical ethical principle to which all engineers should adhere. As a general matter, the public, employers, clients, and colleagues rely upon the honesty and integrity of the professional engineer in professional matters. For that reason, engineers always need to be mindful of their statements as well as their actions. As the expression goes, one’s words are one’s bond and it is often by one’s words how an individual will be judged. The NSPE Board of Ethical Review has had occasion to review cases relating to the statements made by engineers. For example, in BER Case No. 72-11, the Board considered a case involving engineer John Doe who had been employed as a design engineer in an aerospace company for 12 years. During that time Doe had been assigned to the performance of highly technical and complex engineering design work. Along with thousands of other engineers in the aerospace industry, Doe was laid off when contracts with his company were terminated and new work was not forthcoming. After many months of seeking a new job in his specialized field with no success, Doe was advised by an employment counselor that Doe’s only opportunity lay in finding a position involving management and administration of engineering work. Doe previously had some managerial and administrative experience of a minor nature in connection with his former employment, but felt he could perform satisfactorily at a higher level in that related field of technical activity if given the opportunity. After being turned down repeatedly for technical managerial or administrative positions because his resume showed a lack of such experience, Doe devised a new resume, which played down his technical design experience and expertise and emphasized his minor managerial and administrative function in his former employment as an important responsibility. As a result, Doe was able to obta...

Content Length
639 chars
HTML Length
639 chars
Plain Text Length
639 chars
Embedding Dimension
384 Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
Engineer A is acting as the chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary to Engineer B. Engineer A wants to move the negotiations forward to finalize the deal but Engineer B has been stalling. Engineer C had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but following consideration, Engineer C decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary. In an effort to move the negotiations forward, referring to Engineer C’s earlier interest, Engineer A tells Engineer B, “Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.”

Content Length
112 chars
HTML Length
112 chars
Plain Text Length
112 chars
Embedding Dimension
384 Compatible
Created
2026-02-13 16:13
Updated
2026-02-13 16:13
Content Preview
Was it ethical for Engineer A to make the statement to Engineer B in an effort to move the negotiations forward?
Similar Cases

Find cases with similar D-tuple components, provisions, and tags.

Find Similar Cases

D-tuple Component Breakdown

34

Total Entities

9/9

Components Populated

9/9

With Embeddings

Combined Embedding
Roles R
w=0.12 384D
NSPE Board of Ethical Review Adjudicator
In the present case the Board concludes that Engineer A's comments to Engineer B during the business negotiation...
Engineer A Chief Negotiator
Acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, Engineer A wants to finalize the deal and,...
Engineer B Prospective Purchaser
The prospective purchaser of the small engineering subsidiary who has been stalling the negotiations and is the...
Engineer C Former Prospective Purchaser
Expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary but after consideration decided she was definitely not...
4 entities
Principles P
w=0.2 384D
Honesty in Sale Negotiation
The Board rebukes Engineer A's artfully misleading comments made during a business negotiation with a potential...
Full Disclosure in Negotiation
The Board notes that had Engineer A fully disclosed the full circumstances relating to Engineer C, meaning that she...
Honesty in Subsidiary Sale Negotiation
Engineer A, seeking to pressure Engineer B into finalizing the deal, invokes Engineer C's earlier interest to tell...
3 entities
Obligations O
w=0.15 384D
Engineer A Truthful Negotiation Duty
Engineer A must be honest, truthful, and forthcoming in his professional dealings, including statements made to...
Engineer A Engineer C Disclosure Duty
To avoid misleading Engineer B, Engineer A needed to fully disclose the full circumstances relating to Engineer C...
Engineer A Negotiation Truthfulness Duty
Engineer A, while acting as chief negotiator in the sale of the subsidiary, must be truthful in his statements to...
3 entities
States S
w=0.1 384D
Subsidiary Sale Negotiation Pending
Negotiation Material Harm Exposure
Engineer C Withdrawn Purchase Interest
Undisclosed Engineer C Circumstances
Misleading Competing Buyer Claim
5 entities
Resources Rs
w=0.1 384D
BER Case No. 72-11
BER Case No. 72-11 (topic: resume emphasis and truthfulness of an engineer's statements to a prospective employer)
NSPE Code of Ethics
NSPE Code of Ethics (topic: honesty, truthfulness, and avoiding deception in engineers' professional statements)
BER Case No. 86-6
BER Case No. 86-6 (topic: misleading resume claims of personal responsibility for jointly designed products)
3 entities
Actions A
w=0.1 384D
Purchase Interest Expression
Purchase Interest Withdrawal
Misleading Urgency Statement
Nondisclosure of Circumstances
Negotiation Stalling
Board Rebuke Determination
6 entities
Events E
w=0.08 384D
New Employment Attainment
Repeated Application Rejections
Potential Material Harm
Industry Layoff
Job Search Failure
5 entities
Capabilities Ca
w=0.07 384D
NSPE Board Precedent Reasoning
The Board reviews its prior opinions in BER Case No. 72-11 and BER Case No. 86-6 concerning statements made by...
Engineer A Circumstance Disclosure
Engineer A, as chief negotiator, had the capacity to fully disclose the full circumstances relating to Engineer C...
Engineer A Negotiation
Engineer A exercises negotiation competence as the chief negotiator in the sale of the small engineering subsidiary...
3 entities
Constraints Cs
w=0.08 384D
Engineer A Negotiation Deception Prohibition
Engineer A must not tell Engineer B that another company has expressed an interest in buying the subsidiary when...
Engineer A Misleading Negotiation Comments
Engineer A must not make artfully misleading comments to Engineer B during the business negotiation, including...
2 entities
Embeddings: all-MiniLM-L6-v2 (384D, local) | Storage: pgvector (PostgreSQL) | Used for section and component similarity matching