Please provide an IRAC for the following case brief, IRAC is supposed to consist of "Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion" for the following case problem.

Richard Davis, a South Carolina real estate broker who buys underpriced properties to renovate and sell (i.e., "flipping" homes), conceived of and developed a pilot episode of a television show documenting the flipping process. He shopped the pilot to a number of television networks, including to A & E, where he worked with the director of lifestyle programming, Charles Nordlander. Davis and Nordlander discussed turning the show into a series for A & E. Davis proposed that he would assume all of the financial risk relating to the purchase and resale of the real estate but that they would otherwise split the revenues of the show. According to Davis, Nordlander responded, "Okay, okay, I get it." Thereafter, Nordlander arranged for Davis to meet with various A & E representatives and with a production company, Departure Films, all the while reiterating the terms Davis outlined; however, they never reduced the terms to writing. With Departure Films on board, filming began, and A & E's senior vice president notified Davis that "the board approved the money for our series," Flip This House. They filmed 13 episodes of the series, and the show was a commercial success. Unfortunately, there was a dispute over Davis's compensation. A & E offered to pay Davis an appearance fee per episode and a 5 percent share of incremental revenue attributable to the show. Davis rejected that arrangement and signed a talent agreement with another network. A & E went on to produce three more seasons of Flip This House without Davis and never paid him any money, let alone half of the series' net revenue as required by the terms Davis and Nordlander discussed. Davis sued for breach of contract, but A & E denied ever entering into a contract with Davis. Does A & E owe Davis half the net revenues for Flip This House's first season?