Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#Engineer_A_Faithful_Agent_Selective_Emphasis_Permissibility_City_X_Waterfront
Properties
Instance of
FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation
Case context
Engineer A presented the environmental benefits of converting an industrial waterfront to commercial use without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; the Board found this ethically permissible under the relevance and pertinence standard.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.89
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A
Obligation statement
Engineer A, as Developer F's faithful agent, was permitted to present the waterfront development in a client-favorable manner emphasizing environmental benefits, provided he did not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal material facts about adverse public welfare impacts in a manner that would leave the City Planning Board with a materially false impression of the project's net public welfare effects.
Temporal scope
During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board
Relationships
defeasibleUnder
Engineer A Awareness of Undisclosed Development Impacts, Environmental Benefit vs. Traffic and Pollution Tradeoff in Waterfront Development
derivedFromPrinciple
Faithful Agent Obligation Invoked by Engineer A for Developer F
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
Text references
Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.
Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'
TTL
@prefix case94: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/94#> .
@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#> .
case94:Engineer_A_Faithful_Agent_Selective_Emphasis_Permissibility_City_X_Waterfront a proeth:FaithfulAgentPublicHearingPresentationSelectiveEmphasisPermissibilityBoundaryObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Faithful Agent Selective Emphasis Permissibility City X Waterfront" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case94:Engineer_A_Present_Case_Relevance-Conditioned_Traffic_Noise_Air_Pollution_Disclosure ;
proeth-core:defeasibleUnder case94:Engineer_A_Awareness_of_Undisclosed_Development_Impacts,
case94:Environmental_Benefit_vs._Traffic_and_Pollution_Tradeoff_in_Waterfront_Development ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A presented the environmental benefits of converting an industrial waterfront to commercial use without volunteering traffic, noise, and air pollution impacts; the Board found this ethically permissible under the relevance and pertinence standard." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.89" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case94:Faithful_Agent_Obligation_Invoked_by_Engineer_A_for_Developer_F ;
proeth:discoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "94" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Faithful Agent Public Hearing Presentation Selective Emphasis Permissibility Boundary Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A, as Developer F's faithful agent, was permitted to present the waterfront development in a client-favorable manner emphasizing environmental benefits, provided he did not affirmatively misrepresent or conceal material facts about adverse public welfare impacts in a manner that would leave the City Planning Board with a materially false impression of the project's net public welfare effects." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'" ;
proeth:temporalscope "During the public hearing presentation before the City Planning Board" ;
proeth:textreferences "Both Case Nos. 65-9 and 79-2 acknowledge that environmental considerations are often subject to varying arguments, reflecting differing considerations and interests.",
"Engineer A's ethical obligation does not require him to disclose such information if, in his professional judgment, it is not 'relevant and pertinent.'" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 94 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T19:13:05.767827"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 94 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
94
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
First case
94
Generated
2026-02-28T19:03:38.568991+00:00
Attributed to
Case 94 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T19:13:05.767827
Generated by
ProEthica Case 94 Extraction