In January 2020, Murphy and Scarlett purchased a home on 40 acres of property in rural St. Charles County from Bernard.inside the home--first in the basement and then later in the hirst floor living areaMurphy and Scarlett moved into the home with their children in February.Beginning in April, the family began to notice snakesapproached, the family sawmore and more snakes both inside the house and outside in the acreage surrounding their home. They Degan (cnotice hundredsand hundreds of snakes both in and around their home. Murphy consulted a pest controlexpert who did a thorough inspection olthe property. The inspection revealed that the housewas bullt over a snake den which served as the annual hibernationplace for thousands of snakes native to area. The snakes return to the denin thewinter to hibernateagainemerge from the den as the weather warms. The pest control inspector determined thatthe snake den was under the house for at least 10 vearsWhen Murphy and Scarlett bought the property, neither Bernard nor Bernard's real estate agent said anything about the snake den or the presenceof snakes in the house or on the property nearthe house. Murphy and Scarlett would not have boughtthe house had they known about the snake den under the house. Based upon the facts preseinted, under what theory might Murphy and Scarlett seek rescission of the contract? Do they have a strong case against Bernard? What is Bernard'sbestdefense to such claims? Explain your answer.