A first blush this appears to be a case involving a relatively small economic issue compared with the larger commercial and industrial projects with which engineers are often concerned. But as it involves an ethical principle we have not had occasion to address before, we will consider it on the broader philosophical aspects. Also, we note that this is not a case of an engineer allegedly violating the mandate of Section III.4. not to disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs of a client. That provision of the Code necessarily relates to confidential information given the engineer by the client in the course of providing services to the client. Here, however, there was no transmission of confidential information by the client to the engineer.

Whether or not the client in this case actually suffered an economic disadvantage by the reduction of its bargaining power in negotiating the price of the residence through the owner having knowledge gained from the inspection report, the same principle should apply in any case where the engineer voluntarily provides a copy of a report commissioned by a client to a party with an actual or potential adverse interest.

It is a common concept among engineers that their role is to be open and aboveboard and to deal in a straightforward way with the facts of a situation. This basic philosophy is found to a substantial degree throughout the Code (e.g., Sections II.3. and II.3.a). At the same time, Section II.1.c. recognizes the proprietary rights of clients to have exclusive benefit of facts, data, and information obtained by the engineer on behalf of the client.

We read into this case an assumption that Engineer A acted without thought or consideration of any ulterior motive; that he, as a matter of course, considered it right and proper to make his findings known to all interested parties in order that the parties handle their negotiations for the property with both sides having the same factual data flowing from his services.

Thus, although we tend to exonerate Engineer A of substantial or deliberate wrongdoing, he was nevertheless incorrect in not recognizing the confidentiality of his relationship to the client. Even if the damage to the client, if any in fact, was slight, the principle of the right of confidentiality on behalf of the client predominates.