Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 90-4 Neither Element Clearly Satisfied
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#Firm_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Test_—_BER_90-4_Neither_Element_Clearly_Satisfied
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
Case context
In BER Case 90-4, the departing hydrology engineer was not highlighted as a key employee, was not the sole hydrology expert, and hydrology was not a significant practice area, so neither the pertinence nor the intent element was clearly met.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.88
Importance
medium
Obligated party
BER 90-4 Firm Principal
Obligation statement
The BER 90-4 firm principal did not violate the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because neither element of the dual-element test was clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinence uncertain), and the firm's actions appeared to be an oversight without malice or intent to enhance qualifications.
Temporal scope
During the two-week notice period and shortly after departure
Relationships
derivedFromPrinciple
Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 90-4
Source Evidence
Source text
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
Text references
in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm
the Board was reluctant to conclude that the actions of the firm and the engineer in including the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrated an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'
the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent
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 proeth-core: <http://proethica.org/ontology/core#> .
@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_90-4_Neither_Element_Clearly_Satisfied> a proeth:PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Test — BER 90-4 Neither Element Clearly Satisfied" ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case131:BER_83-1_Post-Termination_Key_Employee_Brochure_Misrepresentation ;
proeth:casecontext "In BER Case 90-4, the departing hydrology engineer was not highlighted as a key employee, was not the sole hydrology expert, and hydrology was not a significant practice area, so neither the pertinence nor the intent element was clearly met." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case131:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Test_Applied_in_BER_90-4 ;
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 "medium" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "BER 90-4 Firm Principal" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The BER 90-4 firm principal did not violate the pertinent-fact misrepresentation obligation because neither element of the dual-element test was clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinence uncertain), and the firm's actions appeared to be an oversight without malice or intent to enhance qualifications." ;
proeth:sourcetext "in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the two-week notice period and shortly after departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "in BER Case 90-4, there was no suggestion that any of the brochures or other promotional material describe the departing engineer as a 'key employee' in the firm",
"the Board was reluctant to conclude that the actions of the firm and the engineer in including the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume demonstrated an intent to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work'",
"the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 131 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:50:23.670065"^^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
2026-03-01T11:50:23.670065
Generated by
ProEthica Case 131 Extraction