Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 90-4
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/131#Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Test_Applied_in_BER_90-4
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Continued listing of departing hydrology engineer in firm brochure and resume
Balancing with
Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation
Concrete expression
In BER Case 90-4, the Board found neither element clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a key employee (pertinence uncertain) and the firm's inclusion appeared to be an oversight without enhancement intent, so no violation was found — though the Board did not condone the failure to correct.
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Interpretation
BER 90-4 demonstrates the exculpatory operation of the dual-element test: where the misrepresented information is not clearly pertinent (engineer not highlighted as key, hydrology not a significant service area) and intent to enhance is absent (oversight without malice), the test is not satisfied and no violation is found.
Invoked by
BER 90-4 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer
Tension resolution
The absence of both pertinence and enhancement intent means the currency obligation, while acknowledged as important, does not independently generate a finding of ethical violation — though the Board signals it would in future cases with prolonged inaction after notice.
Source Evidence
Source text
the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent.
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
the inclusion of the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume did not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'
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_90-4 a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Test Applied in BER 90-4" ;
proeth:appliedto "Continued listing of departing hydrology engineer in firm brochure and resume" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Brochure Personnel Currency Disclosure During Active Negotiation Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "In BER Case 90-4, the Board found neither element clearly satisfied: the departing engineer was not highlighted as a key employee (pertinence uncertain) and the firm's inclusion appeared to be an oversight without enhancement intent, so no violation was found — though the Board did not condone the failure to correct." ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
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 "BER 90-4 demonstrates the exculpatory operation of the dual-element test: where the misrepresented information is not clearly pertinent (engineer not highlighted as key, hydrology not a significant service area) and intent to enhance is absent (oversight without malice), the test is not satisfied and no violation is found." ;
proeth:invokedby "BER 90-4 Firm Principal Credential-Misrepresenting Firm Principal Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "the action by the firm and engineer appear more in the manner of an oversight without malice or intent." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The absence of both pertinence and enhancement intent means the currency obligation, while acknowledged as important, does not independently generate a finding of ethical violation — though the Board signals it would in future cases with prolonged inaction after notice." ;
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",
"the inclusion of the name of the departing engineer in the firm's brochure and resume did not constitute a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 131 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:50:23.666689"^^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
2026-03-01T11:50:23.666689
Generated by
ProEthica Case 131 Extraction