Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Competitive_Solicitation_Honest_Non-Disparaging_Communication_Both_Parties_Violation
Properties
Instance of
CompetitiveSolicitationHonestNon-DisparagingCommunicationObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CompetitiveSolicitationHonestNon-DisparagingCommunicationObligation
Case context
Both parties made adverse capability comments to former clients during competitive solicitation; both were found in violation of §12
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.91
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A and Firm B engineers
Obligation statement
Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B violated the obligation to communicate availability and qualifications honestly and without disparaging the other party's capability, by making adverse comments about the other's ability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts.
Temporal scope
During competitive solicitation contacts with former clients following Firm B's formation
Source Evidence
Source text
The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
Text references
Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit
The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12.
TTL
@prefix case168: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#> .
@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#> .
case168:Competitive_Solicitation_Honest_Non-Disparaging_Communication_Both_Parties_Violation a proeth:CompetitiveSolicitationHonestNon-DisparagingCommunicationObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Both Parties Violation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case168:Firm_B_Non-Supplanting_Permissibility_Former_Client_Solicitation ;
proeth:casecontext "Both parties made adverse capability comments to former clients during competitive solicitation; both were found in violation of §12" ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.91" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case168:Honesty_Obligation_in_Competitive_Solicitation_Communications,
case168:Prohibition_on_Reputation_Injury_Invoked_Against_Both_Parties_Capability_Disparagement ;
proeth:discoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "168" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A and Firm B engineers" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Competitive Solicitation Honest Non-Disparaging Communication Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Both Engineer A and the four engineers of Firm B violated the obligation to communicate availability and qualifications honestly and without disparaging the other party's capability, by making adverse comments about the other's ability to provide adequate or quality services to former clients during competitive solicitation contacts." ;
proeth:sourcetext "The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During competitive solicitation contacts with former clients following Firm B's formation" ;
proeth:textreferences "Both sides were in clear error by indulging in criticisms of the other when, as here, the aspersions were cast purely in terms of attempting to secure a personal benefit",
"The charge and counter-charge by both A and B regarding the capability of the other to provide adequate or quality services are both affronts to §12." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 168 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:59:28.931986"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 168 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
168
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
First case
168
Generated
2026-03-02T02:48:55.985109+00:00
Attributed to
Case 168 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T02:59:28.931986
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction