Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 71-2 (1971) · Brokerage of Engineering Services
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
Firms A and B Honest Competence Representation Violation in Specialized Procurement
prevails over
Firms A and B Honorable Professional Conduct in Specialized Procurement
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Firm B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
prevails over
Firm B Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility
prevails over
Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation
Firm A Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
prevails over
Firm A Specialist-Retention Provision Contextual Reading Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Firm B Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
prevails over
Firm B Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm B
Engineer X Agency-Initiated Direct Engagement Non-Supplanting Permissibility
prevails over
Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms A and B No Definite Selection Steps — Anti-Supplanting Non-Activation
Firm A Broker-Only Role Transparency and Specialist Referral Duty
prevails over
Firm A Nominal Prime Capability Misrepresentation in Government Solicitation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Nominal Subconsultant Arrangement — Firm A
Firms A and B Broker-Only Role Specialist Referral Obligation
prevails over
Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
Firms A and B Pre-Acceptance Competence Self-Assessment Failure
prevails over
Firms A and B Substantive Prime Contribution Threshold Failure
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Firms A and B Nominal Contribution Misrepresentation
Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response
prevails over
Firms A and B Qualifications Non-Misrepresentation in Solicitation
No State context committed for this edge.
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer X Prior Sub-Consultant Arrangement Conflict Review Before Independent Acceptance vs Engineer X Supplanting Prohibition Definite-Steps Threshold Verification
Firms A and B Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition in Procurement Response vs Firms A and B Hypothetical Compliant Path Substantive Contribution Geographic Calibration
What the board concluded
- It was not ethical for Firm A or Firm B to offer its services as the prime professional under the stated circumstances.
- It would be ethical for Engineer X or his firm to accept the contract under the stated circumstances.