Brief the following case using the IRAC method:

Issue:

Rule:

Application:

Conclusion:

Brier: Fish V Iex. Legislative Serv., P'ship Summary: Russel H. Fish III, individually and on behalf of Texas Legislative Services (TLS), sued TLS partners Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish, alleging that they violated various terms of the TLS partnership agreement. During Andrew's tenure as a manger, Andrew and John have set their compensation without notice to or express consent of any other partners not working in the business, including their brother, Russel. Andrew and John challenged the allegations on a number of substantive grounds, including contending that the section 2.5 of the agreement unambiguously authorizes them to set their own salaries as majority interest holders and as a majority of the partners working in the business or, alternatively, section 2.5 is ambiguous and the historical practice of allowing the working partners to set their salaries is conclusive evidence of section 2.5's intended meaning. The trial court rendered final judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. Russell appealed the trial's court ruling. Brier: Fish V Iex. Legislative Serv., P'ship Summary: Russel H. Fish III, individually and on behalf of Texas Legislative Services (TLS), sued TLS partners Andrew K. Fish and John C. Fish, alleging that they violated various terms of the TLS partnership agreement. During Andrew's tenure as a manger, Andrew and John have set their compensation without notice to or express consent of any other partners not working in the business, including their brother, Russel. Andrew and John challenged the allegations on a number of substantive grounds, including contending that the section 2.5 of the agreement unambiguously authorizes them to set their own salaries as majority interest holders and as a majority of the partners working in the business or, alternatively, section 2.5 is ambiguous and the historical practice of allowing the working partners to set their salaries is conclusive evidence of section 2.5's intended meaning. The trial court rendered final judgment in favor of Andrew and John on all claims. Russell appealed the trial's court ruling