Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 05-4 (2005) · Failure to Disclose Full Impact of Development
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.
dissolution
Analytical conclusion 4: Q201/Q202: The tension between loyalty to Developer F and...
Since Engineer A stayed within the bounds of honesty and remained available to answer direct questions candidly, the Board concluded that his loyalty to Developer F in shaping the presentation did not conflict with, and could coexist with, the duty of truthful reporting.
What the board concluded
- It was not unethical for Engineer X to fail to volunteer the fact that the anticipated commercial development could increase traffic, as well as noise and air pollution.
Recorded violations:
Adverse Information Nondisclosure violates Engineer A Relevant Information Disclosure Duty