David and Karen Wilson are in the market for a newhomeLinks to an external site.

.After looking for months, they finally settle on a historic Victorian that offers both character and comfort.The home needs some updating, but most of the work seems to be cosmetic so they set aside a conservative budget for the renovations.The inspections go well, except for some minor findings that the seller quickly offers to fix inorderLinks to an external site.

for the sale to go through.After they close on the property, they hire acontractorLinks to an external site.

to begin the renovation work.During the demolition process their finds that behind a seemingly "newer" wall there is mold that developed from a leak on the roof near the chimney.According to the contractor, it seems like there was evidence of trying to "patch" the leak unsuccessfully and putting new dry wall to disguise the damage.The roof repair and mold removal will add another $5,000 to the already tight renovation budget.In addition, the day after they close on their home, the city passed a new ordinance requiring historic home renovations to undergo review and approval by an architect specializing in historic preservation.Prior to the closing, David asked the realtor if therewereany limitations to renovations on historic homes in the area.The realtorresponded: "not at the moment."The Wilson's realtor is part of the city board that approved the new ordinance.The cost of hiring an architect to review and approve their plans will significantly add to their budget and time.The Wilsons feel like they were deceived by the seller and their realtor.Based on the facts of this case, can the Wilson's recover from the seller and/or realtor?Are there any exceptions?Explain your answer.