Step 1: Contextual Framework Pass (Facts)

Section Content:

Facts:
Engineer A had been retained by the prime professional engineer to provide mechanical and electrical engineering services for a large housing project.
The project was completed and occupied four years later, and Engineer A was fully paid for his services.
Approximately seven years after the original occupancy, ownership of the facility changed.
The new owner informed Engineer A he had retained Engineer B to make an engineering inspection of the facility, and there were problems associated with the wiring.
At the owner's request, a joint inspection of the wiring was made by the two engineers and the city wiring inspector.
The inspection did not reveal any defects in the wiring.
The owner advised Engineer B of his complaint concerning the plumbing and heating systems.
Engineer B thereafter conducted a further study and filed a report with the owner.
The report noted there was no problem with the design of the plumbing system, but concluded there were design inadequacies in the original sizing of the equipment for hot water and heating.
Engineer B recommended the installation of equipment of higher capacity.
Engineer A thereafter filed a complaint with the state engineering registration board alleging that Engineer B had acted improperly in that the report was not objective and did not include all pertinent information, and further alleged that the actions of Engineer B were self-serving at the expense of the dignity and reputation of Engineer A.
Engineer A requested the registration board to find Engineer B guilty of "misconduct" in that Engineer B had obtained employment by a questionable method of criticizing Engineer A without his knowledge.
A question has been raised as to the ethical principles involved in this case.