As Turk Eximbank points out, Nevada does appear to require some "direct relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant," to justify an unjust enrichment claim. On Demand Direct Response, LLC v. McCary-Pollack, 2016 WL 5796858, No. 2:15-cv-01576-MMD-VCF (D. Nev. Sept. 30, 2016) (citing Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961)). Under Turk Eximbank's theory, because it never directly dealt with Intransia, and was only assigned the payment right for receivables where Intransia performed its shipping services, a relationship never existed between the two parties justifying an unjust enrichment claim.
Moreover, the plaintiff must show some direct /// relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961). According to Plaintiff, Harrington took her "Lots of Love Buddies" idea and brochure, including all the work that went into her concept, which allowed Harrington and others to bring her concept to market.
Moreover, the plaintiff must show some direct relationship or dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant. Zalk-Josephs Co. v. Wes Cargo, Inc., 366 P.2d 339, 342 (Nev. 1961). Under Pollak's theory, Harrington took her idea and brochure, including all the work that went into her concept, which allowed Third-Party Defendants to bring the CloudPets to market.
While the statute uses the general term, "notice," it is intended to be in legal effect the presentation of a claim (United States v. York, supra) without which a cause of action under the statute cannot come into being. Zalk-Josephs v. Wells Cargo, 77 Nev. 441, 366 P.2d 339 (1961). Cf. Robinson Clay Product Co. v. Beacon Construction Co. of Mass. Inc., 159 N.E.2d 530 (Mass. 1959).