Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/171#Pertinent_Fact_Misrepresentation_Intent-and-Purpose_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 brochure distribution listing Engineer A as key employee after termination notice and after actual departure
Balancing with
Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation
Concrete expression
Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — both during the notice period and after actual departure — satisfied both elements of the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact decisive to client selection, and (2) Engineer B acted with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications.
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Interpretation
Both prongs must be satisfied for a Section II.5.a violation; the Board found both present — the name of a key employee is clearly pertinent to client selection, and Engineer B (who initiated the termination) was well aware of the misrepresentation.
Invoked by
NSPE Board of Ethical Review
Tension resolution
The Board rejected the argument that reprinting costs or impracticability excuse the misrepresentation; the intent-and-purpose element was satisfied by Engineer B's awareness of the termination and continued distribution.
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.' Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
Text references
Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.
Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.
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 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_Intent-and-Purpose_Dual-Element_Test_Applied_to_Engineer_B_Brochure a proeth:PertinentFactMisrepresentationIntent-and-PurposeDual-ElementTest,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test Applied to Engineer B Brochure" ;
proeth:appliedto "Engineer B's brochure distribution listing Engineer A as key employee after termination notice and after actual departure" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Marketing Communication Currency and Accuracy Maintenance Obligation" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer B's continued distribution of a brochure listing Engineer A as a key employee — both during the notice period and after actual departure — satisfied both elements of the dual-element test: (1) Engineer A's name was a pertinent fact decisive to client selection, and (2) Engineer B acted with intent and purpose to enhance the firm's qualifications." ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "171" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "Both prongs must be satisfied for a Section II.5.a violation; the Board found both present — the name of a key employee is clearly pertinent to client selection, and Engineer B (who initiated the termination) was well aware of the misrepresentation." ;
proeth:invokedby "NSPE Board of Ethical Review" ;
proeth:principleclass "Pertinent Fact Misrepresentation Intent-and-Purpose Dual-Element Test" ;
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.' Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist." ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The Board rejected the argument that reprinting costs or impracticability excuse the misrepresentation; the intent-and-purpose element was satisfied by Engineer B's awareness of the termination and continued distribution." ;
proeth:textreferences "Both prongs must be present for a violation of Section II.5.a. to exist.",
"Engineer B was the very person who terminated Engineer A.",
"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 "2026-03-02T14:51:15.289189"^^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
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
First case
171
Generated
2026-03-02T14:37:23.349304+00:00
Attributed to
Case 171 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-02T14:51:15.289189
Generated by
ProEthica Case 171 Extraction