DP6
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#DP6
Properties
Instance of
Decision Point Id
DP6
Decision question
Should Engineer A treat the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative — an adverse party in the transaction — as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report, or is the adversarial relationship merely one factor in a broader confidentiality analysis?
Focus
The real estate firm that received the inspection report represented the sellers — the opposing party in an active price negotiation with Engineer A's clients. This adversarial relationship raises the question of whether the firm's status as an adverse party independently heightens Engineer A's duty to withhold the report beyond a generic confidentiality obligation, and whether the ethical analysis would differ materially if the report had been transmitted to a neutral party such as a municipal building inspector rather than to the sellers' representative.
Option1
Recognize the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report — separate from and in addition to the general confidentiality obligation — and refrain from any transmission to the firm regardless of other considerations.
Option2
Treat the real estate firm's role as the sellers' representative as one relevant factor in a broader confidentiality analysis, but not as a categorical bar — allowing disclosure if other factors such as professional transparency norms, minimal harm, or the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement are deemed to outweigh the adversarial relationship.
Option3
Apply a heightened non-disclosure duty specifically because the recipient is an adverse party in an active negotiation, while acknowledging that transmission to a genuinely neutral party — such as a municipal building inspector — would present a different ethical profile requiring separate analysis rather than categorical prohibition.
Role
Engineer A
TTL
@prefix case97: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/97#> .
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix proeth-cases: <http://proethica.org/ontology/cases#> .
@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#> .
case97:DP6 a proeth-cases:DecisionPoint,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionPointId "DP6" ;
proeth:decisionQuestion "Should Engineer A treat the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative — an adverse party in the transaction — as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report, or is the adversarial relationship merely one factor in a broader confidentiality analysis?" ;
proeth:focus "The real estate firm that received the inspection report represented the sellers — the opposing party in an active price negotiation with Engineer A's clients. This adversarial relationship raises the question of whether the firm's status as an adverse party independently heightens Engineer A's duty to withhold the report beyond a generic confidentiality obligation, and whether the ethical analysis would differ materially if the report had been transmitted to a neutral party such as a municipal building inspector rather than to the sellers' representative." ;
proeth:option1 "Recognize the real estate firm's status as the sellers' representative as an independent categorical basis for withholding the report — separate from and in addition to the general confidentiality obligation — and refrain from any transmission to the firm regardless of other considerations." ;
proeth:option2 "Treat the real estate firm's role as the sellers' representative as one relevant factor in a broader confidentiality analysis, but not as a categorical bar — allowing disclosure if other factors such as professional transparency norms, minimal harm, or the absence of a formal confidentiality agreement are deemed to outweigh the adversarial relationship." ;
proeth:option3 "Apply a heightened non-disclosure duty specifically because the recipient is an adverse party in an active negotiation, while acknowledging that transmission to a genuinely neutral party — such as a municipal building inspector — would present a different ethical profile requiring separate analysis rather than categorical prohibition." ;
proeth:roleLabel "Engineer A" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T19:46:13.135148"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 97 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Generated
2026-03-01T19:46:13.135148
Generated by
ProEthica Case 97 Extraction