How this case resolved it
No obligation was overridden in this case: the board resolved the apparent tension without defeat, as recorded below.
Resolved without defeat
The board resolved the apparent tension here by setting a duty's boundary (specification) or by finding no genuine conflict on the facts (dissolution), rather than by allowing one obligation to prevail over another.
specification
Analytical conclusion 8: Q203: The apparent tension between Objectivity in Contrac...
Because the Owner had negotiated the interpreter-and-judge clause into the contract, the board concluded that faithful agency in this engagement was never unconditional, so impartial adjudication within that clause's scope is not a betrayal of loyalty but its proper expression.
specification
Analytical conclusion 2: Objectivity in Contract Dispute takes clear priority over...
Because Engineer A's contract placed him in an adjudicative capacity, the board concluded that the usual meaning of faithful agent as advancing the Owner's substantive interests was displaced by a narrower duty to faithfully execute the interpretive role itself, making objectivity the controlling obligation for that function.
What the board concluded
From the Board's conclusions in Case 93-4:
- It would be unethical for Engineer A to have found in the Owner's favor, contrary to his considered professional findings in this matter.