dissenting:
Because I believe that the district court’s granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants required it to invade the province of the jury and resolve genuine issues of fact, I dissent. I disagree with the majority on two grounds. First, I believe that a conflict between the plaintiff’s deposition testimony and affidavit does not preclude the existence of a genuine issue of fact, at least where there is a plausible explanation for the discrepancy. Second, even if such a conflict does provide grounds for an adverse summary judgment, I do not believe that Mr. Junkins’s affidavit contradicted his prior deposition testimony.
A district court may enter a summary judgment only when the moving party has sustained its burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Sweat v. Miller Brewing Co., 708 F.2d 655, 656 (11th Cir.1983), and all doubt as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Hayden v. First National Bank of Mt. Pleasant, 595 F.2d 994, 996-97 (5th Cir.1979). This case raises the question whether a genuine issue of material fact is created by an affidavit that apparently contradicts or conflicts with the nonmovant’s earlier deposition testimony. Our predecessor court faced this same question in Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887 (5th Cir.1980). In that case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant had made material misrepresentations about the content of an employment contract. The plaintiff’s deposition testimony apparently contradicted itself on the question whether the defendant had made any statements at all about the contract. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed an affidavit that explained the apparent conflict and indicated that the defendant had uttered the alleged misrepresentations. The Court held that “a genuine issue can exist by virtue of a party’s affidavit even if it conflicts with earlier testimony in the party’s deposition.” Id. at 893. The Court pointed out that, although the discrepancy might create an issue of credibility, credibility questions are not appropriate for resolution on motion for summary judgment. Id. The majority relies on Radobenko v. Automated Equipment Corp., 520 F.2d 540 (9th Cir.1975), and Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co., 410 F.2d 572 (2d Cir.1969), to support its conclusion that an affidavit that conflicts with an earlier deposition does not create a genuine issue of fact. The majority’s claim that “[tjhere is no conflict in the Perma Research and Radobenko decisions and the Fifth Circuit opinion in Kennett-Murray Corp.” reads Kennett-Murray much too narrowly. Although the Kennett-Murray Court expressly avoided outright rejection of the Perma Research and Radobenko holdings, it clearly launched this Court’s precedent in a different direction. The Court stated:
Certainly, every discrepancy contained in an affidavit does not justify a district court’s refusal to give credence to such evidence____ In light of the jury’s role *660in resolving questions of credibility, a district court should not reject the content of an affidavit even if it is at odds with statements made in an earlier deposition.
622 F.2d at 894. The Kennett-Murray Court distinguished Perma Research and Radobenko on the ground that in Kennett-Murray “the alleged inconsistency created by the affidavit existed within the deposition itself.” Id. But the Court then stated that “[e]ven assuming that the deposition was unequivocal, Bone’s affidavit served to create a genuine issue which would preclude summary judgment.” Id. The Court held that where the affiant’s explanation of a discrepancy is “at least plausible,” id., the affidavit creates a genuine issue. The majority’s holding is clearly in conflict with Kennett-Murray in that it permits a district court faced with the nonmovant’s contradictory statements to supplant the jury’s role by making a credibility determination adverse to the nonmovant.
Furthermore, even if the majority is correct in holding that a nonmovant’s contradictory statements provide grounds for summary judgment, it reaches the wrong result because in this case there was no contradiction. Junkins’s deposition statements were simply not logically inconsistent with his affidavit. The majority correctly indicates that in his deposition Jun-kins testified that “no one stated that he had to buy a building from A & S as a condition, a term, or a prerequisite to becoming a dealer.” (emphasis supplied) The following is a recitation of Junkins’s relevant deposition testimony:
Q: Did either of them ever tell you that you had to have one of their buildings as your office building in order to be their dealer?
A: They insisted that we go ahead and order the building; they didn’t tell me I had to buy their building, but they insisted that we go ahead and order the building.
Q: Neither Darryl nor Kent ever told you that you were required to have an A & S building in order to be a dealer?
A: They didn’t state specifically it was a requirement; they did mention that they had heard that I needed a building and so forth.
Q: But before you ordered the building no one had told you that you were required to order that building in order to be a dealer?
A: Nobody stated it was a requirement.
Q: Yes sir; before you purchased the building did anyone from A & S tell you that that was a term and condition of becoming a dealer?
A; They just insisted we order the building; they didn’t state specifically it was a term of the Agreement, or anything.
In his affidavit, Junkins said that Dunbar told him that “if, in addition, I would purchase one of their buildings then I would be awarded the dealership,” and “I would become a dealer if I were to order the building.” The statements are not logically contradictory; indeed, they are quite consistent. Even though Junkins admits that the A & S dealers did not represent that purchase of an A & S building was a prerequisite to obtaining a dealership, Jun-kins claims that they did represent to him that if he did purchase a building he was, in .effect, guaranteed a dealership. Only this second representation is material to Junkins’s claim. Standing alone, a representation that purchase of a building is a requirement of dealership could not be fraudulent because it does not promise or represent that A & S would actually award the dealership. On the other hand, a statement that A & S would make Junkins a dealer if he bought one of their buildings might be the basis for a fraud or misrepresentation or breach of contract claim.
Junkins’s affidavit creates a genuine issue of fact even under the majority’s interpretation of Kennett-Murray. The majori*661ty appears to construe that case as prohibiting summary judgment where a subsequent affidavit explains any apparent conflict with the earlier deposition. Junkins’s affidavit did just that:
Mr. Cunningham’s questions to me (in the deposition) were oftentimes phrased in such terms that the literal truth was misleading in the answer. There were several occasions when Mr. Cunningham asked me if I had told him everything there was concerning a particular aspect of my dealings with Kent Smith and Darryl Dunbar and I had to tell him that I was not sure but if he would ask specific questions, I would try my best to answer.
When I answered the question that no one specifically told me I had to buy a building in order to become an A & S dealer, I was answering the question literally as it was put to me. I was not allowed to elaberate (sic) or to offer any testimony concerning what they specifically did say with regard to the purchase of the building as it related to becoming a dealer.
Finally, the majority appears to place some reliance on the fact that the A & S salesmen told Junkins that his dealership application had to be approved by someone in their home office. Junkins testified at his deposition that the salesmen assured him that such approval was a mere formality. Their claims were corroborated by A & S’s Vice President for Marketing who, when contacted by Junkins about the progress of his dealership application, said that all such decisions were made by the local salesmen. Junkins’s affidavit and deposition clearly created genuine issues of material fact, which should have been resolved by the jury. I would, therefore, reverse and remand.