Question: The Fritzes owned a home and five acres of land. They decided to move and rent the house, placing it with a rental agent to manage the property as a rental. The rental agent rented the house to a group of tenants who used the house for illegal drug activity. They used the rear deck and hot tub of the house as a methamphetamine lab and the basement as a marijuana growing operation. These activities were discovered by the local Narcotics Task Force, and two of the tenants were charged with manufacturing methamphetamine. The local newspaper publishedan article in which it identified the property and the people involved in the illegal activity. The Fritzes learned from law enforcement that the task force had confiscated a marijuana growing operation and implements of a methamphetamine lab from their property. The tenants were evicted and the Fritzes subsequently decided to sell the property. In preparation for the sale, they cleaned the house, painted it, and changed the floor coverings. The Bloors moved to the area in 2004 and began looking for a home to purchase. When they were shown the Fritzes' property, they decided to make an offer to buy it. Mr. Fritz completed a seller's disclosure statement in which he represented that the property had never been used as an illegal drug manufacturing site. Although there was evidence that the real estate broker who represented both the Fritzes and the Bloors knew that the drug task force had discovered a marijuana growing operation and methamphetamine lab on the property, he did not disclose it to the Bloors.

The Fritzes accepted the Bloors' offer, and the Bloors moved into the house in August 2004. In September, the Bloors' son heard from a member of the community that the property was known as a "drug house." The Bloors then began investigating and found an online version of the news article about the drug bust. Mrs. Bloor contacted the drug task force and learned that the task force had confiscated a methamphetamine lab at the property. In October, the County Health Department notified the Bloors that the property was contaminated by the methamphetamine manufacturing and was not fit for occupancy. Occupancy of buildings contaminated by methamphetamine manufacturing is dangerous to the health and safety of occupants. The Bloors were not even allowed to remove their personal property from the house because of the risk of cross-contamination. They left the house, leaving nearly all of their personal belongings in the house and garage. The health department posted an order prohibiting use of the property. The order stated that the Bloors were financially responsible for the cost of remediation, that a certified decontamination contractor would have to perform the remediation, and that use of the property was subject to criminal charges. The Bloors stayed with relatives until they could secure a place to live, eventually moving to another city. They had to repurchase clothing, bedding, furniture, and other necessities. They were unable to both support themselves and make their monthly mortgage payments. Do the Bloors have grounds for rescinding the purchase of the house?