Ethics Double Check 9

[KootK]

The situation:

1) I have a contractor client that accounts for 5%-10% of my annual revenue.

2) This contractor did some work on a property and, in the course of that work, may have done some inadvertent damage to the structure. This is the property owner's claim. The contractor doesn't really agree but has done some DIY reinforcement anyhow.

3) The property owner wants a structural engineer to sign off on the damage / repairs before paying the contractor for their services.

4) The contractor has engaged me to help the property owner with this. They see this as a favor that they are trying to do for the property owner. They've not leaned on me to influence my recommendations etc. They just want to do what's right and exit the situation with their reputation in tact as much as possible.

5) The property owner has raised the question as to whether or not this is a conflict of interest for me.

Is this a conflict of interest for me? My instincts are not always great on this stuff. I just like to work and ride my bike(s).

Yes, I do have a vested interest in helping my contractor client to solve their problem. However, I consider that interest to be trumped by my ethical obligations to our profession and the public.

Frankly, I struggle to envision a real world assignment where I would not have some vested interest in helping my clients in ways that would be in opposition to my ethical obligations. It's a constant balancing act. Saving people money and making whacky architectural dreams come true is the cornerstone of my business after all.

What say you?

 

[human909]

This stuff is gold. You sound like a lawyer.

Is there stuff out there that one might read to become a pseudo lawyer as you seem to be? I'm pretty handy with logic and precise language.

Kootk. If this interests you then I suggest you do a deep dive into contract law.

Most people this contracts are big formal agreements that need signatures. No they are much, much more. (As you may already know.) Go buy a bottle of soda from a street vendor and you have just entered into a contract. Presumably both you the buyer and the street vendor fulfil your respective agreements under the contract and you walk away with a bottle of soda and the vendor has your $3.

 

[gte447f]

I was referring specifically to Australian practice, where an expert witness has a higher duty to the court than to their client. Or so the law says.

10-4. I am not at all familiar with Australian practice.

 

[Smoulder]

"Verbal contracts, and, by extension, emails using contract-like language or language that could successfully be interpreted by an adverse party to create a contractual relationship, are almost always valid and enforceable and should be treated as such."

Other hand is intent and it'sabsolutely key. Home owner says he wants to engage KootK. Kootk says he already has contract with builder. Doubt court will see any intent for contract with home owner.