With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Co. 816 A.2d 1179 (Pa.Super.2003), which applied an analogous misfeasance/nonfeasance analysis. It is also supported by a number of federal district court eases applying Pennsylvania law. See, e.g., Precision Printing Co. v. Unisource Worldwide, Inc., 993 F.Supp. 338, 356 (W.D.Pa.1998) (“[A] promise which the promisor had no intention of keeping at the time he made it may be actionable as fraud.”); Leonard A. Feinberg, Inc. v. Cent. Asia Capital Corp., 974 F.Supp. 822, 843 (E.D.Pa.1997) (“ ‘[A] cause of action for fraud can be predicated on future promises if the defendant knew at the time he made the promise that he would not carry it out.’ ”) (quoting Killian v. McCulloch, 850 F.Supp. 1239, 1255 (E.D.Pa., 1994)); Fox’s Foods, Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 870 F.Supp. 599, 609 (M.D.Pa.1994) (<HOLDING>); Ebeling & Reuss, Ltd. v. Swarovski, Int’l,

A: holding there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that the defendant did not intend to perform when the promise was made
B: holding that the district court did not err in finding the record sufficient to conclude prior conviction qualified as a violent felony for purposes of the acca as the evidence was sufficient to conclude the criminal action charged in one court was the basis for a judgment against the defendant in a different court
C: holding that evidence was sufficient for jury to determine date employment was to begin
D: holding that a party was not entitled to damages when an agreement clearly designated a provision as a condition precedent and not a promise to perform
A.