Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 79-7 (1979) · Review of Original Engineer's 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
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Non-Suppression
prevails over
Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Review Without Malicious Intent
Engineer B Honest Disagreement Permissibility Heating Equipment Sizing Conclusion
prevails over
Engineer B Adverse Technical Finding Malicious Intent Non-Satisfaction Non-Violation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Review Without Malicious Intent
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Via Complaint Filing
prevails over
Engineer A Improper Complaint Filing Against Engineer B Technically Compliant Conduct
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Self-Serving Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer
Featured
Engineer B Objective and Complete Reporting Balanced Findings
prevails over
Engineer B Post-Occupancy Inspection Honest Adverse Finding Plumbing Heating Report
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer B Competitive Self-Interest Contamination Risk in Criticism
- Engineer B Report Alleging Design Inadequacies in Heating Equipment Sizing
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Violated by Complaint Filing
prevails over
Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Violated
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Registration Board Complaint Against Engineer B
- Engineer A Reputational Harm from Predecessor Design Criticism
Engineer B Post-Completion Terminated-Relationship Review Without Notification Permissibility
prevails over
Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review
- Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State
- Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection
Engineer B Peer Review Prohibition Interpretation Client Public Interest Non-Subordination
prevails over
Engineer B Peer Review Knowledge Requirement Purpose-Limited Interpretation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Connection Terminated Years Prior to Review
- Engineer A Original Design Completion and Payment State
- Ownership Change Triggering New Engineering Inspection
Engineer A Non-Obstruction of Legitimate Peer Review Via Complaint Filing
prevails over
Engineer A Baseless Regulatory Complaint Non-Filing Against Engineer B
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Self-Serving Complaint Against Reviewing Engineer
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Honest Technical Disagreement Collegial Non-Retaliation Against Engineer B vs Engineer A Improper Complaint Filing Against Engineer B Technically Compliant Conduct
What the board concluded
- Engineer B was not unethical in taking the assignment and in rendering the report to the owner.