Firm B Engineers Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Active Contract
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/168#Firm_B_Engineers_Supplanting_Rule_Non-Application_Former_Clients_No_Active_Contract
Properties
Instance of
FormerClientNo-Active-ContractSolicitationPermissibilityRecognitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FormerClientNo-Active-ContractSolicitationPermissibilityRecognitionObligation
Case context
Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Engineer A who had no active contract with Engineer A
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.93
Importance
high
Obligated party
Four departing engineers of Firm B
Obligation statement
The four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from former clients of Engineer A because Engineer A had no existing contract and was not engaged in negotiations for a particular project at the time of solicitation.
Temporal scope
Upon formation of Firm B and initiation of client solicitation
Relationships
competesWith
Engineer A Supplanting Protest Competitive Motivation Non-Weaponization, Firm B Specialized Knowledge Former Client Project Competition Constraint
Source Evidence
Source text
Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
Text references
To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.
Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A.
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:Firm_B_Engineers_Supplanting_Rule_Non-Application_Former_Clients_No_Active_Contract a proeth:FormerClientNo-Active-ContractSolicitationPermissibilityRecognitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Firm B Engineers Supplanting Rule Non-Application Former Clients No Active Contract" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case168:Engineer_A_Supplanting_Protest_Competitive_Motivation_Non-Weaponization,
case168:Firm_B_Specialized_Knowledge_Former_Client_Project_Competition_Constraint ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case168:Firm_B_Specialized_Project_Knowledge_Solicitation_Restriction,
case168:Free_and_Open_Competition_Framework_Governing_Engineering_Firm_Competition,
case168:Prior_Client_Relationship_Leverage_by_Departed_Engineers ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case168:Engineer_A_Supplanting_Protest_Competitive_Motivation_Non-Weaponization ;
proeth:casecontext "Four engineers departed Firm A and formed Firm B, then solicited former clients of Engineer A who had no active contract with Engineer A" ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.93" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case168:Former-Client_Solicitation_Permissibility_Invoked_for_Firm_B_Engineers,
case168:Free_and_Open_Competition_Invoked_for_Firm_B_Solicitation_of_Former_Clients ;
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 "Four departing engineers of Firm B" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Former Client No-Active-Contract Solicitation Permissibility Recognition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "The four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from former clients of Engineer A because Engineer A had no existing contract and was not engaged in negotiations for a particular project at the time of solicitation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon formation of Firm B and initiation of client solicitation" ;
proeth:textreferences "To that extent, and under those facts, the four engineers of Firm B had a right to seek assignments from the former clients of Engineer A.",
"Under that concept, we take it from the submitted facts that Engineer A did not have an existing contract, nor was he engaged in negotiations for a particular project relative to the contacts made by Firm B with former clients of Engineer A." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 168 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T02:59:28.929464"^^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
2026-03-02T02:59:28.929464
Generated by
ProEthica Case 168 Extraction