Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 84-5 (1984) · Engineer's Recommendation For Full-Time, On-Site Project Representative
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
Ethics Code Higher Standard Than State Board Rules Engineer A Construction Project
prevails over
Voluntary Ethics Code Higher Standard Commitment Engineer A NSPE Member
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
No State context committed for this edge.
Public Welfare Paramount Obligation Engineer A Cost-Capitulation Violation
prevails over
Project Success Safety-Inclusive Notification Engineer A Client Refusal
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Client Cost-Based Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative
Going-Along Prohibition Engineer A Post-Client-Cost-Refusal Construction Phase
prevails over
Engineer A Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Proceeds Without Objection After Safety Refusal
Engineer A Going-Along Prohibition Violation After Client Cost Refusal
prevails over
Active Insistence Non-Substitution by Silent Notification Engineer A Safety Staffing
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Acquiescence Without Dissent or Withdrawal
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Staffing Insistence or Withdrawal
prevails over
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Engineer A On-Site Representative
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Client Economic Interest Displacing Engineer Primary Safety Obligation
Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Obligation
prevails over
Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Client Rejection of On-Site Safety Representative on Cost Grounds
Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Engineer A Construction Phase Representative
prevails over
Engineer A Client Override Written Documentation Obligation
the two obligations are in tension (competesWith)
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Confirmed Construction Risk Without Adequate Safeguards
Engineer A Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Violation
prevails over
Passive Acquiescence Independent Ethical Failure Engineer A On-Site Representative Refusal
the yielding obligation gives way only under (defeasibleUnder):
- Engineer A Proceeds Without Objection After Safety Refusal
Open tensions recorded without a resolution:
Cost-Pressure Safety Recommendation Abandonment Prohibition Engineer A On-Site Representative vs Public Welfare Paramount Obligation Engineer A Cost-Capitulation Violation
Engineer A Client Safety Violation Insistence or Withdrawal Obligation vs Engineer A Persistent Client Safety Persuasion Before Withdrawal
Engineer A Construction Phase Safety Staffing Insistence or Withdrawal vs Engineer A Graduated Escalation Before Project Withdrawal
What the board concluded
- It was unethical for Engineer A to proceed with work on the project knowing that the client would not agree to hire a full-time, on-site project representative.