The inconsistent deposition testimony of Krupnick seems to undermine their affidavits and indicate that the plaintiffs knew the true status of the Reputex registration when they signed the agreements. (Exhibit DB-1, Krupnick dep., 6/5/00, at 49,277-79.) But the court cannot resolve this credibility issue on summary judgment. 17 . The plaintiffs’ evidence on this point is, again, not compelling. In deposition testimony that contradicts his affidavit, Krupnick clearly said that he only assumed from the language of the agreements that Avecia would register Reputex in Mexico and Canada. (Exhibit DB-1, Krupnick dep., 6/5/00, at 95,277-78.) 18 . See also, Rohm and Haas Co. v. Continental Cas. Co., 732 A.2d 1236, 1253 (Pa. Super. 1999), appeal granted, 562 Pa. 673, 753 A.2d 820 (2000) (<HOLDING>). 19 . Even were Pennsylvania law to apply to
recognizing that a jury is permitted to infer an intent to deceive from circumstantial evidence holding defendants possession of fake ids was sufficient to infer his intent to defraud or deceive recognizing that jury may infer from the evidence that defendants money came from drug sales holding that motive is circumstantial evidence of intent recognizing that while it is more difficult to show actual fear without a defendants testimony a jury can infer intent from the circumstantial evidence