Engineer A Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality BER 93-4
O · Obligation
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/98#Engineer_A_Contractually_Designated_Dispute_Resolver_Impartiality_BER_93-4
Properties
Instance of
ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation
Case context
Engineer A was retained by an Owner for design and construction-phase services. A dispute arose between the Owner and the General Contractor over the acceptability of a concrete pour. Engineer A was contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability. The Owner demanded that Engineer A find in the Owner's favor based on loyalty.
Compliance status
met
Confidence
0.95
Importance
high
Obligated party
Engineer A (BER Case 93-4)
Obligation statement
Engineer A was obligated to render an impartial, objective determination in the concrete pour dispute based solely on the contract documents and the facts, refraining from finding in the Owner's favor merely because the Owner was the client, even when the Owner demanded a client-favoring result.
Temporal scope
Upon being asked by both the Owner and the Contractor to review the dispute
Relationships
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A, sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work.
Text references
By acting in an impartial, neutral, and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the contract documents' requirements and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement.
Engineer A, sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work.
Following his review, Engineer A agreed with the Contractor's position, noting that the Owner had approved certain changes in the work and that the Contractor complied with those changes.
TTL
@prefix case98: <http://proethica.org/ontology/case/98#> .
@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#> .
case98:Engineer_A_Contractually_Designated_Dispute_Resolver_Impartiality_BER_93-4 a proeth:ContractuallyDesignatedDisputeResolverImpartialityObligation,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Engineer A Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality BER 93-4" ;
proeth-core:competesWith case98:Engineer_A_Client_Loyalty_Non-Partisan_Dispute_Finding_Boundary_BER_93-4 ;
proeth-core:prevailsOver case98:Engineer_A_Client_Loyalty_Non-Partisan_Dispute_Finding_Boundary_BER_93-4 ;
proeth:casecontext "Engineer A was retained by an Owner for design and construction-phase services. A dispute arose between the Owner and the General Contractor over the acceptability of a concrete pour. Engineer A was contractually designated as the initial interpreter of contract documents and judge of work acceptability. The Owner demanded that Engineer A find in the Owner's favor based on loyalty." ;
proeth:compliancestatus "met" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Obligation" ;
proeth:confidence "0.95" ;
proeth:derivedFromPrinciple case98:Impartiality_in_Contractually_Designated_Dispute_Resolution_Role_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_BER_Case_93-4,
case98:Objectivity_Invoked_By_Engineer_A_BER_Case_93-4_Dispute_Resolution ;
proeth:discoveredincase "98" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-02-28T00:37:33.627657+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "98" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-02-28T00:37:33.627657+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:obligatedparty "Engineer A (BER Case 93-4)" ;
proeth:obligationclass "Contractually Designated Dispute Resolver Impartiality Obligation" ;
proeth:obligationstatement "Engineer A was obligated to render an impartial, objective determination in the concrete pour dispute based solely on the contract documents and the facts, refraining from finding in the Owner's favor merely because the Owner was the client, even when the Owner demanded a client-favoring result." ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A, sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work." ;
proeth:temporalscope "Upon being asked by both the Owner and the Contractor to review the dispute" ;
proeth:textreferences "By acting in an impartial, neutral, and objective manner as the initial interpreter of the contract documents' requirements and judge of the acceptability of the work, Engineer A fulfilled his legal and ethical responsibility under the terms of the agreement.",
"Engineer A, sought to remain impartial in the dispute, citing a provision in his contract with the Owner stating that the engineer is the initial interpreter of the requirements of the contract documents and judge of the acceptability of the work.",
"Following his review, Engineer A agreed with the Contractor's position, noting that the Owner had approved certain changes in the work and that the Contractor complied with those changes." ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 98 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-02-28T00:43:22.143201"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 98 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
98
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-02-28T00:37:33.627657+00:00
First case
98
Generated
2026-02-28T00:37:33.627657+00:00
Attributed to
Case 98 Extraction
Generated
2026-02-28T00:43:22.143201
Generated by
ProEthica Case 98 Extraction