Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 86-6 (1986) · Engineer Misstating Professional Achievements on Resume
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 Co-Designer Credit Omission Five Team Members Resume
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Engineer A Progressive Ethics Code Broadening Retroactive Non-Application Acknowledgment
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Engineer A Artfully Misleading Resume Implication Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Intentional Deception vs Inadvertent Inaccuracy Distinction Application
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
Case 79-5 Diploma Mill PhD Engineer Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation
prevails over
John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Failure to Credit Design Team Members
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Joint Team Design Credit Held by Six Engineers
Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition
prevails over
Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Distinction
Engineer A Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Resume Submission to Employer Y
prevails over
Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Implied Sole Credit on Resume
- Engineer A Intentional vs Unintentional Misrepresentation Distinction
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Employer Y Resume-Deceived Prospective Employer Obligation to Verify Qualifications vs Engineer A Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation Resume Submission to Employer Y
Engineer A Co-Designer Credit Omission Five Team Members Resume vs Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
Engineer A Joint Patent Team Composition Disclosure Resume Employer Y vs Engineer A Resume Competitive Pressure Non-Justification for Misrepresentation
Engineer A Resume Implication-Based Misrepresentation Prohibition vs John Doe Case 72-11 Selective Emphasis Competence-Deception Boundary Compliance
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to imply on his resume that he was personally responsible for the design of the products which were actually designed through the joint efforts of the members of the design team.