Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/58#Engineer_Adam_Artfully_Misleading_Statement_Prohibition_Firm_Sale_Negotiation
Properties
Instance of
ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation
Case context
Engineer Adam, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, made an artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker referencing Engineer Mary's earlier (but definitively withdrawn) interest in purchasing the subsidiary, in order to create urgency and move stalled negotiations forward.
Compliance status
unmet
Confidence
0.92
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer Adam
Obligation statement
Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, while technically referencing a prior expression of interest, was artfully misleading in that it created a false impression of current competitive interest designed to pressure Engineer Baker into accelerating the negotiation.
Temporal scope
During the negotiation with Engineer Baker, after Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Public Safety at Risk — Undersized Aging Water Ma in
derivedFromPrinciple
Honesty Invoked in Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Negotiation
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
Text references
Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'
Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.
the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'
TTL
@prefix case58: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/58#> .
@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#> .
case58:Engineer_Adam_Artfully_Misleading_Statement_Prohibition_Firm_Sale_Negotiation a proeth:ArtfullyMisleadingStatementProhibitionObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer Adam Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Firm Sale Negotiation" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case58:Engineer_Adam_Full_Circumstance_Disclosure_Firm_Sale_Negotiation_Engineer_Mary_Status ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/58#Public_Safety_at_Risk_—_Undersized_Aging_Water_Main> ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer Adam, acting as chief negotiator in the sale of a small engineering subsidiary, made an artfully misleading statement to Engineer Baker referencing Engineer Mary's earlier (but definitively withdrawn) interest in purchasing the subsidiary, in order to create urgency and move stalled negotiations forward." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "unmet" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.92" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case58:Honesty_Invoked_in_Engineer_Adam_Artfully_Misleading_Negotiation ;
proeth:discoveredincase "58" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "58" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer Adam" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Artfully Misleading Statement Prohibition Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer Adam was obligated to refrain from telling Engineer Baker that 'another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary' when Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest — recognizing that this statement, while technically referencing a prior expression of interest, was artfully misleading in that it created a false impression of current competitive interest designed to pressure Engineer Baker into accelerating the negotiation." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary." ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the negotiation with Engineer Baker, after Engineer Mary had definitively declined further interest" ;
proeth:textreferences "Engineer Adam told Engineer Baker, 'Another company has expressed an interest in buying our subsidiary, so you had better move quickly if you are interested.'",
"Engineer Mary had expressed some initial interest in buying the subsidiary, but after further consideration, Engineer Mary decided she was definitely not interested in purchasing the subsidiary.",
"the Board found Engineer Adam's words 'artfully misleading' or, in the words of prior BER Case 86-6, 'intentionally designed to mislead… by obscuring the truth.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 58 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-25T22:07:12.213688"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 58 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
58
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
First case
58
Generated
2026-02-25T21:58:16.305408+00:00
Attributed to
Case 58 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-25T22:07:12.213688
Generated by
ProEthica Case 58 Extraction