Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 93-4 (1993) · Engineer's Duty As Interpreter Of Contract Documents
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
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
- It would be unethical for Engineer A to have found in the Owner's favor, contrary to his considered professional findings in this matter.