Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure BER-82
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Engineer_B_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Misrepresentation_Test_Brochure_BER-82
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation
Case context
The Board applied the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name as a key employee was a 'pertinent fact' because clients may select a firm based on the presence of a named engineer; (2) Engineer B's continued distribution with knowledge of the impending and actual departure demonstrated intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications. Both elements were satisfied, establishing a violation of Section II.5.a.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer B
Obligation statement
Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the firm's promotional brochure satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — that it did not misrepresent pertinent facts (element 1) with intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications (element 2) — and failed this obligation by listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure.
Temporal scope
During brochure distribution both during notice period and after actual departure
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
Text references
Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
It is clear, therefore, that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'
The facts presented in the case appear to demonstrate that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.
Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'
TTL
@prefix case171: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#> .
@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#> .
case171:Engineer_B_Pertinent_Fact_Dual-Element_Misrepresentation_Test_Brochure_BER-82 a proeth:PertinentFactDual-ElementMisrepresentationTestComplianceObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer B Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Brochure BER-82" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case171:Engineer_B_Notice-Period_Active-Negotiation_Key-Employee_Departure_Disclosure_BER-82 ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case171:Engineer_B_Pre-Termination_Brochure_Distribution_During_Notice_Period ;
proeth:casecontext "The Board applied the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name as a key employee was a 'pertinent fact' because clients may select a firm based on the presence of a named engineer; (2) Engineer B's continued distribution with knowledge of the impending and actual departure demonstrated intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications. Both elements were satisfied, establishing a violation of Section II.5.a." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case171:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Brochure ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer B" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Pertinent Fact Dual-Element Misrepresentation Test Compliance Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer B was obligated to ensure that the firm's promotional brochure satisfied both elements of the pertinent-fact misrepresentation test under NSPE Code Section II.5.a — that it did not misrepresent pertinent facts (element 1) with intent and purpose to enhance firm qualifications (element 2) — and failed this obligation by listing Engineer A as a key employee after termination notice and after actual departure." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During brochure distribution both during notice period and after actual departure" ;
proeth:textreferences "Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.",
"It is clear, therefore, that the inclusion of the name of Engineer A in the firm's brochure constituted a misrepresentation of 'pertinent facts.'",
"The facts presented in the case appear to demonstrate that Engineer B acted with 'intent and purpose' in distributing the misleading brochure.",
"Thus, the Code provision requires the Board to interpret that provision to determine whether (l) Engineer B in fact misrepresented 'pertinent facts' and (2) whether it was the intent and purpose of Engineer B to 'enhance the firm's qualifications and work.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.292058"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:40:34.949168+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.292058
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction