Engineer A Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Performance
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/176#Engineer_A_Contractually_Designated_Dispute_Resolver_Impartiality_Performance
Properties
Instance of
ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation
Case context
Owner-Contractor dispute over acceptability of a concrete pour; Engineer A was contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability; Engineer A rendered a finding in favor of the Contractor on the merits.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.96
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to render an impartial, objective, and technically grounded determination in the Owner-Contractor concrete pour dispute, based solely on the merits of the contract documents and the facts, refraining from finding in favor of the Owner merely because the Owner was the retaining client.
Temporal scope
Upon being called upon to resolve the Owner-Contractor concrete pour dispute under the contract's dispute resolution provision
Source Evidence
Source text
By acting in an impartial, neutral and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement.
Text references
By acting in an impartial, neutral and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement.
Engineer A owed a general duty of loyalty to the Owner and we also believe that in acting impartially under the terms of the contract, Engineer A fulfilled that ethical obligation to the Owner.
TTL
@prefix case176: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/176#> .
@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#> .
case176:Engineer_A_Contractually_Designated_Dispute_Resolver_Impartiality_Performance a proeth:ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Performance" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case176:Engineer_A_Client_Loyalty_Non-Partisan_Boundary_BER_85-5,
case176:Engineer_A_Faithful_Agent_Trustee_Loyalty_Non-Fiduciary_Interpretation_BER_85-5,
case176:Engineer_A_Owner_Loyalty_Misapplication_Non-Acquiescence_BER_85-5 ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case176:Engineer_A_Faithful_Agent_Trustee_Loyalty_Non-Fiduciary_Interpretation_BER_85-5 ;
proeth:casecontext "Owner-Contractor dispute over acceptability of a concrete pour; Engineer A was contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability; Engineer A rendered a finding in favor of the Contractor on the merits." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.96" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case176:Impartiality_Obligation_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_In_Concrete_Pour_Dispute,
case176:Impartiality_Obligation_Invoked_in_Engineer_A_Dispute_Role ;
proeth:discoveredincase "176" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "176" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to render an impartial, objective, and technically grounded determination in the Owner-Contractor concrete pour dispute, based solely on the merits of the contract documents and the facts, refraining from finding in favor of the Owner merely because the Owner was the retaining client." ;
proeth:sourcetext "By acting in an impartial, neutral and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon being called upon to resolve the Owner-Contractor concrete pour dispute under the contract's dispute resolution provision" ;
proeth:textreferences "By acting in an impartial, neutral and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement.",
"Engineer A owed a general duty of loyalty to the Owner and we also believe that in acting impartially under the terms of the contract, Engineer A fulfilled that ethical obligation to the Owner." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 176 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T11:13:16.200515"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 176 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
176
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00
First case
176
Generated
2026-03-01T11:05:20.105198+00:00
Attributed to
Case 176 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T11:13:16.200515
Generated by
ProEthica Case 176 Extraction