fee. We hold that it does not because the sports franchise is merely an incidental beneficiary, payment to whom, without more, cannot serve as consideration between the company and its employee. Moreover, promissory estoppel fails to support the trial court’s finding of a binding oral contract in favor of the company. Consequently, we reverse. ¶ 2 It is not surprising, in a case concerning the existence of an oral contract, that the parties dispute many facts crucial to its disposition. The record is inconclusive, and much hinges on witness credibility. Because the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility governs most findings of fact pertinent to this case, we must accept those facts as found by the trial court. See Commonwealth v. Rochon, 398 Pa.Super. 494, 581 A.2d 239 (1990) (<HOLDING>). These we set forth below. ¶ 3 In July of
holding jury as judge of credibility may believe all some or none of the testimony holding that this court will not disturb factfinders witness credibility determinations where evidence is conflicting factfinder may believe all part or none of the testimony holding court does notweigh conflicting evidence or consider witness credibility and witnesses conflicting or differing accounts do not necessarily render the evidence insufficient holding that the court is not to undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence make credibility determinations or substitute its judgment for that of the agency holding mere conflict in testimony does not render evidence insufficient to support verdict because it is with province of fact finder to determine weight to be given to testimony and to believe all part or none of evidence