Obligation-Conflict Resolution
Case 05-4 (2005) · Failure to Disclose Full Impact of Development
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
From the Board's conclusions in Case 05-4:
- 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