Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Brochure
Properties
Instance of
PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest
Applied to
Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure
Balancing with
Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, and (2) whether Engineer B acted with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications through the listing; the post-actual-termination continued use is more likely to satisfy both elements than the notice-period distribution.
Confidence
0.88
Importance
high
Interpretation
Engineer A's designation as a 'key employee' in the brochure strongly suggests pertinence to client selection; the continued use after actual termination, when Engineer B had full knowledge of the inaccuracy, raises a strong inference of intent to enhance qualifications through the misrepresentation.
Invoked by
Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer
Tension resolution
Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct.
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
Text references
Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees
continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A.
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 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:Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Brochure a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's Clients Prospective Engineering Services Client Relying on Firm Brochure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Notice-Period Brochure Distribution Conditional Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer B's continued distribution of the brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee must be assessed against both elements: (1) whether Engineer A's listing constitutes a 'pertinent fact' to prospective clients' selection decisions, and (2) whether Engineer B acted with the intent and purpose of enhancing the firm's qualifications through the listing; the post-actual-termination continued use is more likely to satisfy both elements than the notice-period distribution." ;
proeth:confidence "0.88" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "facts" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Engineer A's designation as a 'key employee' in the brochure strongly suggests pertinence to client selection; the continued use after actual termination, when Engineer B had full knowledge of the inaccuracy, raises a strong inference of intent to enhance qualifications through the misrepresentation." ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer B Brochure-Misrepresenting Terminating Employer Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees, and continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "Both elements are more readily satisfied post-actual-termination than during the notice period; the dual-element test provides a graduated analysis that distinguishes the two temporal phases of Engineer B's conduct." ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer B distributed a previously printed brochure listing Engineer A as one of Engineer B's key employees",
"continued to use the previously printed brochure with Engineer A's name in it well after Engineer B did in fact terminate Engineer A." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 171 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-02T14:51:15.273309"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 171 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
171
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
facts
First discovered
2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:28:39.943101+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.273309
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction