NDEJJE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
NAME:
kaleebu Ronnie
STUDENT NO:
2100304371
COURSE UNIT: Introduction to engineering
TASK:
Course work
Assignment: Codes of engineering
LECTURER:Mr. Kiyimba Mubisi Michael
SIGNATURE:
……………………………….
CASE ONE: PLANS SIGNED BY AN OUTSIDE ENGINEER
The procedure was ethical, this is because the city inspector refused to accept the plans
that had not been sigmed bt a registered engineering. And another thing the engineer certified
the plans after satisfyi g him self that the design and plans were adaquent and economical.
The engineering was unreasonable. This is because he wouldn't have charged the same
fee because as if he is the one that made the plans.
The owner is not expeceted to pay. The fabricator is responsible to pay becquse its their
work to go the engineer and get the seal and the signature on the plans to shpw that they are
approved.
CASE TWO: ADVERTISING ENGINEERING SERVICES
"We may be able to spare your future worries and unnecessary money through correct
Design and Supervision of Construction," is boastful, self-laudatory, and indicates that the
organization can provide a competent service that others cannot. As a result, it is clearly neither
circumspect, discrete, or dignified. The use of the word "We" also gives the impression of
denigrating other engineers. * The quoted text is a claim rather than a statement of fact.
CASE THREE: FAILURE TO GIVE CREDIT TO OTHERS
No, He wouldn't have done so, this isbecause in the field they were two researchers him
and Joshua. In that they had discovered the problem but Luke was unable to correlate his data
into a simple parttern and Joshua had described his data in a well known classical formula. But
unfortunately luke published a paper explaining all the data through Joshua's formula and
never arcknowledged his contribution.
He wasn't right because he has to first do further investigation about Joshuas formula,
compare with his findings and see if they would correlate.
CASE FOUR: RECTRIFICATION OF AN ERROR.
No, he should say something about the inadequacy because engineers should have high
standards of honesty and intergrity to their clients. Then disclose a report showing that the
structure is not capable of carrying the proposed load.
Yes, he should work out a system of reinforcement for the structure to ensure firmness of
the structure for the public safety that would be as a result of an earth quake occuring.
Yes he should admit to the original error
CASE FIVE: PROMTIONAL REFERENCE TO WORK AND CLIENTS OF PREVIOUS EMPLOYERS
It was unethical, the references "list of clients" and "project of firm" are missleading, deceptive
and violation to the code of ethics. Engineer Atukunda used statements certaining a material
misrepresentation of fact. For the referrence of project of the firm, had the promotional
brochure contained a clarification specifically stating that the projects identified were
performed by current employees of the firm when they were employed by the named firms and
depending upon all the facts and circumstances, the board may have reached a different result.