dissenting: I agree with all of the legal principles set out by the majority, but I cannot agree that Alliance lacked sufficient evidence that Grooms was a general contractor. Because reasonable minds can and do disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Dunlap was the sole general contractor, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for a trial where a fact-finder would resolve this genuine factual issue.
The Kansas Supreme Court reminded us only last month that we “must refrain from assessing witness credibility and weighing evidence” on a summary-judgment motion because those functions are the responsibility of the fact-finder at trial. “Summary judgment should not be used to prevent the necessaiy examination of conflicting testimony and credibility in the crucible of a trial.” Esquivel v. Watters, 286 Kan. 292, Syl. ¶ 2, 183 P.3d 847 (2008). It is not an appellate court’s function to weigh credibility where contradictory testimony exists. A leading treatise under the parallel federal rule also explains that when a specific basis is shown to *986impeach the credibility of a witness on a key point, the issue should be left for trial:
“Clearly, if the credibility of the movant’s witnesses is challenged by the opposing party and specific bases for possible impeachment are shown, summary judgment should be denied and the case allowed to proceed to trial, inasmuch as this situation presents the type of dispute over a genuine issue of material fact that should be left to the trier of fact.’’ 10A Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 3d § 2726, pp. 446-47 (1998).
Evidence here suggests that Grooms was a general contractor on this job, and there is ample basis on which to impeach the credibility of the contrary testimony. Grooms listed his own company, Associated Construction Services, as the general contractor on the “Jobsite Information Sheet.” Thus, one of the two parties to the claimed contract between Grooms and the Pilands represented that there was, indeed, a contractual relationship between them. That’s direct evidence that there was a contract between them, even though there may be some evidence to the contrary.
Grooms’ own testimony, which the majority also cites, also provides corroborating evidence that he was the general contractor on this job:
• Grooms initially said it was accurate that his company was the general contractor before, perhaps realizing he hadn’t wanted to say that, he interrupted the next question to say that “Mr. Dunlap’s company was the actual general contractor.” (Emphasis added.)
• Grooms said that he “did all of the estimating” and that he “was liaison to the customer.”
• Grooms said that.he supervised Dunlap, the putative general contractor: “I ovérsaw it, made sure that the dirt work was properly done, which Mr. Dunlap did that, and the concrete was placed properly and the building was erected properly.” Grooms separately noted that “Mr. Dunlap poured the concrete.” So Grooms apparently supervised all of the work that Dunlap did on the job.
• Grooms did not have a general contractor’s business license, which meant that a licensed company would have to obtain the building permit. Grooms’ lack of a license explains Dun*987lap’s role in the official paperwork without negating the possibility — recognized by file majority — that Grooms also was a contractor. Grooms’ own word choices were also specifically consistent with that scenario. When he was asked why he listed himself as the general contractor on the Jobsite Information Sheet, Grooms responded, “Well, I was doing business with Mr. Dunlap, I did not hold a general contractor’s license at the time so we were doing it through Mr. Dunlap’s general contractor’s license.” (Emphasis added.) A fact-finder could certainly conclude that the “we” referred to Grooms and Dunlap, who acted together as contractors. A fact-finder could also certainly conclude that Grooms and Dunlap were engaging in unethical business deals by subverting the licensing laws.
• Grooms was asked whether “you needed somebody to do the general contracting?” He said he did, and he agreed that he contacted Dunlap to do that on a previous job and agreed to handle this one the same way. Once again, this is consistent with the theory that Grooms and Dunlap acted together as contractors.
• Grooms said that he was “[w]orkmg as an equal, being equal in responsibility for getting the job done” with Dunlap.
The evidence I have just reviewed provides direct and circumstantial evidence that Grooms was the general contractor on the project in all aspects except placement of a name on the building permit. In response, the defendants present Grooms’ ultimate denial that he was the general contractor, as well as the testimony of Dunlap and the Pilands that Dunlap was the real contractor. Substantial bases are available on which to impeach this contrary testimony. The Pilands’ testimony certainly can be impeached by their financial interests: if Grooms was a contractor on the job, die Pi-lands face potential liability for Alliance’s lien of $54,673 plus interest. Grooms’ testimony can be impeached by his inconsistent statements, the Jobsite Information Sheet, and his sketchy business practices. Dunlap’s testimony can be impeached based upon his past relationship with Grooms and his potential desire for future business with Grooms or the Pilands.
*988In particular, the relationship between Dunlap and Grooms certainly raises credibility questions since they apparently have sought to avoid local licensing laws together. Grooms testified that an owner of another property on an earlier job “contracted me to do a plumbing warehouse for him” (emphasis added), but Grooms had Dunlap obtain the building permit because Grooms did not have a general contractor’s business license. Dunlap could be fairly cross-examined based on this evidence about his potential interest in future business with Grooms in which Dunlap’s contractor’s license would be used to get building permits while Grooms did most of the work, including the day-to-day supervisory effort. Grooms certainly speaks in a manner consistent with a theory that Grooms was the general contractor but that he and Dunlap agreed to put the permits in Dunlap’s name and work together on the project since Dunlap had the required business license:
“As far as putting up this building you have to have a general contractor’s license to build something in Finney County and I did not have one and Mr. Dunlap and I had done a previous project that was worked the same way as far as he bought the permits." (Emphasis added.)
In this excerpt, Grooms testified that the permit had been “worked the same way” on the Pilands’ project as on the prior one. As already noted, Grooms had testified that the owner in the other project had contracted with Grooms but that Dunlap obtained the permit. Undoubtedly, neither Grooms nor Dunlap would have an incentive to admit that they were subverting local licensing laws through their arrangements.
All of the evidence referenced here was properly cited by Alliance in its response to the summary-judgment motion. In it brief before the district court, Alliance explicitly claimed that “[bjecause Grooms did not have a general contractor’s license, he and Dunlap did the project together under Dunlap’s general contractor license.” The majority recognizes that more than one contractor can be on a job, and the majority recognizes that the contract between the owner and contractor may be express or implied and does not require a written document. Alliance presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that both Grooms and Dunlap were contractors *989on this job. I would reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for trial.