Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 83-1 Both Elements Satisfied
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#Firm_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_—_BER_83-1_Both_Elements_Satisfied
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
Case context
In BER Case 83-1, the firm principal continued to distribute a brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' both during the notice period and after actual departure, satisfying both the pertinence and intent elements of the misrepresentation test.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
BER 83-1 Firm Principal
Obligation statement
The BER 83-1 firm principal violated the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because both elements of the dual-element test were satisfied: (1) the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact), and (2) the continued distribution of the brochure after actual departure demonstrated intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate.
Temporal scope
During distribution of the brochure after the terminated engineer's departure
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 83-1
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
Text references
The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications
TTL
@prefix case131: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#Firm_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_—_BER_83-1_Both_Elements_Satisfied> a proeth:PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 83-1 Both Elements Satisfied" ;
proeth:casecontext "In BER Case 83-1, the firm principal continued to distribute a brochure listing a terminated 'key employee' both during the notice period and after actual departure, satisfying both the pertinence and intent elements of the misrepresentation test." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case131:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Test_Applied_in_BER_83-1 ;
proeth:discoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "BER 83-1 Firm Principal" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The BER 83-1 firm principal violated the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because both elements of the dual-element test were satisfied: (1) the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact), and (2) the continued distribution of the brochure after actual departure demonstrated intent to enhance firm qualifications beyond what was accurate." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During distribution of the brochure after the terminated engineer's departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'",
"The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure",
"it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 131 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:50:23.669918"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 131 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
131
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00
First case
131
Generated
2026-03-01T11:42:25.705817+00:00
Attributed to
Case 131 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T11:50:23.669918
Generated by
ProEthica Case 131 Extraction