is consummated, (e) facts basic to the transaction, if he knows that the other is about to enter into it under a mistake as to them, and the other, because of the relationship between them, the customs of the trade or other objective circumstances, would reasonably expect a disclosure of those facts. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551 (1977). Pursuant to § 551, silence about material facts basic to the transaction, when combined with a duty to speak, is the functional equivalent of a misrepresentation or “supplying false information” under Restatement § 552. In addition to generally following the Restatement, Nevada already has recognized a cause of action for fraud by nondisclosure where a special relationship between the parties imposes a duty to speak. See Epperson, 719 P.2d at 804 (<HOLDING>); Mackintosh v. Jack Matthews and Co., 109 Nev.
holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding defendant owes a duty to disclose where the defendant alone has knowledge of material facts which are not accessible to the plaintiff holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence holding that under certain conditions a bank assumes a duty to disclose facts material to a transaction