Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 83-1
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Test_Applied_in_BER_83-1
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Continued distribution of brochure listing terminated key employee after departure
Balancing with
Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
Concrete expression
In BER Case 83-1, the Board found both elements satisfied: the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact) and the firm distributed the brochure with awareness of the termination to enhance qualifications (intent and purpose), constituting a clear ethical violation.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
The dual-element test requires both pertinence of the misrepresented fact and enhancement intent; BER 83-1 is the paradigm case where both elements are clearly present, making it the benchmark against which less clear cases are distinguished.
Invoked by
BER 83-1 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
Where both elements are present, the violation is clear and the currency/accuracy obligation provides no defense; the firm's awareness of the termination negates any claim of inadvertent oversight.
Source Evidence
Source text
The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
Text references
The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including the terminated engineer's name in the promotional brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm
The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure
the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code
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#> .
case131:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Test_Applied_in_BER_83-1 a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 83-1" ;
proeth:appliedto "Continued distribution of brochure listing terminated key employee after departure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "In BER Case 83-1, the Board found both elements satisfied: the terminated engineer was highlighted as a 'key employee' (pertinent fact) and the firm distributed the brochure with awareness of the termination to enhance qualifications (intent and purpose), constituting a clear ethical violation." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T11:39:47.234904+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "131" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T11:39:47.234904+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The dual-element test requires both pertinence of the misrepresented fact and enhancement intent; BER 83-1 is the paradigm case where both elements are clearly present, making it the benchmark against which less clear cases are distinguished." ;
proeth:invokedby "BER 83-1 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Where both elements are present, the violation is clear and the currency/accuracy obligation provides no defense; the firm's awareness of the termination negates any claim of inadvertent oversight." ;
proeth:textreferences "The Board considered whether it was the 'intent and purpose' the engineer to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work' by including the terminated engineer's name in the promotional brochure after the terminated engineer left the firm",
"The Board found that the facts presented in the case demonstrated that the engineer acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure",
"the Board concluded that it would be a clear misrepresentation of a pertinent fact with the intent to enhance the firm's qualifications and as such constituted a violation of the Code" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 131 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:50:23.666490"^^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
2026-03-01T11:39:47.234904+00:00
First case
131
Generated
2026-03-01T11:39:47.234904+00:00
Attributed to
Case 131 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T11:50:23.666490
Generated by
ProEthica Case 131 Extraction