Facts
[B.A.] and [A.A.] (Plaintiffs, Appellants) acquired the alpine hut "[X.]" from [D.C.] and [C.C.] (Defendants, Respondents) in 2010. In the fall of 2013, the Defendants handed the Plaintiffs a folder with documents related to the property. The parties then agreed to hold discussions, during which the Plaintiffs claimed they were unaware that the construction was only approved as a wood and tool shed and that the permissible expansion had already been exhausted. The Defendants, on the other hand, took the position that they had at least informed [A.A.] about this.
With a claim filed on November 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs requested that the purchase contract be declared non-binding for them due to deception or mistake. The District Court of Plessur dismissed the claim, as did the Cantonal Court of Graubünden on appeal.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the lower court, based on its assessment of the evidence, concluded that at least [A.A.] was aware of the lack of a…