The Fact Chronology of Case # 84-3

Fact Time Qualifier
1. Engineer A <founds the company> "A-Engineering". Pre-existing fact
2. "A-Engineering" <provides engineering services on> Projects X. Immediately after the conclusion of 1
3. Engineer B & Engineer C <do not provide engineering services on> Projects X. Occurs concurrently with 2
4. Engineer B & Engineer C <are employed by> "A-Engineering". 10 years after the start of 1, After the conclusion of 3
5. "A-Engineering" <provides engineering services on> Projects Y. After the start of 4
6. Engineer B & Engineer C <provide engineering services on> Projects Y. Occurs as part of 5
7. Engineer B & Engineer C <buys the company> "A-Engineering". 10 years after the start of 4, After the conclusion of 5
8. Engineer B & Engineer C <keep the company name> "A-Engineering" Name. [Questioned Fact 1] Immediately after the conclusion of 7
9. Engineer B & Engineer C <advertise or solicit engineering business using> (("A-Engineering" <provides engineering services on> Projects X) & ("A-Engineering" <provides engineering services on> Projects Y)). [Questioned Fact 2] After the conclusion of 7, Occurs during 8
10. Engineer A <retires from> "A-Engineering". 5 years after the conclusion of 7, Occurs during 8, 9

Actor and Object Types.

1.
Engineer A --> Principal Engineer.
2.
"A Engineering" --> Engineering Firm.
3.
Projects X --> Engineering Project(s).
4.
Projects Y --> Engineering Project(s).
5.
Engineer B --> Engineer.
6.
Engineer C --> Engineer.
7.
"A-Engineering" Name --> An Engineering Firm's Name.

The Board's Analysis

Questioned Fact(s) 1: Fact 8
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B, Engineer C
The Board's Conclusion: Ethical

The board cites the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
I.5. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed III.3.a. None ^ Engineer solicits professional employment [9] ^  ^ Engineer performs deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment [7, 8, 10] 

% However, a company name is representative of all of the engineers who work for that company, not just the engineer who the company is named for. % [4] ^ 

III.3.a. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed I.5. None ^ Engineer makes a statement(s) [8] ^  ^ Engineer's statement(s) omits a material fact that could be misleading [7, 10] 

% However, a company name is representative of all of the engineers who work for that company, not just the engineer who the company is named for. % [4] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

Questioned Fact(s) 2: Fact 9
Questioned Actor or Actors: Engineer B, Engineer C
The Board's Conclusion: Ethical

The board cites the following evidence in support of their conclusion:

Code Code Status How Cited Grouped With Over rides Why Relevant? Why Violated, Not Violated, Changed, or Not Applicable?
I.5. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed III.3.a. None ^ Engineer solicits professional employment [9] ^  ^ Engineer performs deceptive acts in the solicitation of professional employment [3, 9] 

% However, Engineer informs potential clients that the firm, and not the Engineer individually, was responsible for certain projects. % [Hypo: "... as long as Engineers B and C ... indicate to prospective clients that it was the firm, and not Engineers B and C individually, that was responsible for certain workdone prior to their association with the firm, we conclude such statements would be ethically proper."] ^ 

III.3.a. Not Violated Explicitly Discussed I.5. None ^ Engineer makes a statement(s) [9] ^  ^ Engineer's statement(s) omits a material fact that could be misleading [3] 

% However, Engineer informs potential clients that the firm, and not the Engineer individually, was responsible for certain projects. % [Hypo: "... as long as Engineers B and C ... indicate to prospective clients that it was the firm, and not Engineers B and C individually, that was responsible for certain work done prior to their association with the firm, we conclude such statements would be ethically proper."] ^ 

The board cited the following evidence that conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

The board cited the following background information that neither directly supports nor directly conflicts with their conclusion:

None.

[Main Page] [Index to Reference Documents]
[Index to All Examples] [Previous Example] [Next Example]