The Peters were interested in buying the Dunn's house which was situated on a bluff. They were, however, worried that the bluff might wash away. They were assured by the Dunn's that "this bluff is perfectly safe." When the bluff washes completely away (and the house too), can the Peters successfully rescind the K on the basis of fraud in the inducement? Was this statement a statement of opinion or fact? What the Peters never asked about the erosion of the bluff? Could the Dunn's failure to inform the Peters constitute fraud