DP3

DecisionPoint
http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#DecisionPoint

DP3

Should Engineer A treat the duty of non-misrepresentation as extending to Engineer C's professional position — refraining from characterizing Engineer C as an active competing buyer without her knowledge or consent — or may Engineer A invoke Engineer C's prior interest without regard to the independent collegial duty owed to Engineer C as a fellow professional?

Engineer A's statement to Engineer B implicates not only the duty of honesty owed to Engineer B as a direct counterparty but also an independent collegial duty owed to Engineer C, whose professional position and prior decision to withdraw are being misrepresented without her knowledge or consent. Engineer A must decide whether the duty of non-misrepresentation extends to how one engineer characterizes another's professional stance to a third party.

Treat the duty of non-misrepresentation as extending to Engineer C's professional position and refrain entirely from characterizing Engineer C — or her firm — as an active or interested competing buyer, recognizing that doing so without her knowledge or consent and contrary to her actual current position constitutes an unauthorized and potentially reputation-affecting use of her professional status.

Reference Engineer C's prior expressed interest as a historical signal of market demand — without identifying Engineer C by name — on the basis that a past expression of interest is a real fact about the subsidiary's market appeal and that the collegial duty of non-misrepresentation does not extend to preventing accurate references to historical events involving third parties.

Before making any reference to Engineer C's prior interest in negotiations with Engineer B, seek Engineer C's explicit consent to disclose the full circumstances of her prior interest and withdrawal, thereby respecting Engineer C's professional autonomy and ensuring that any reference to her position is authorized and accurately framed.

Engineer A