Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 04-8 (2004) · Public Welfare—Client Action Following Engineers 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
No resolved obligation competitions are committed for this case.
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Engineer A Client Notification Duty vs Engineer A Compliance Advisory Duty
Engineer A Client Notification Duty vs Engineer A Remediation Monitoring Duty
Engineer A Compliance Advisory Duty vs Engineer A Remediation Monitoring Duty
What the board concluded
- Engineer A should contact the client and inquire about the actions the client has taken and point out the action is a violation of the law and that steps need to be take to remedy the violation or obtain a variance from the proper authorities. In this connection, the engineer should advise that the remedial actions should be in full compliance with all applicable environmental laws and...