Can a finding of fact "could have created a latent defect" create a legal leverage to void a purchase agreement?

With respect to the appellant’s argument that the adjudicator found as a finding of fact “could have created a latent defect” to provide the appellant with legal leverage to either void the agreement and get his deposit back or reopen the agreement to account for the rot in a reduction of the purchase price, the appellant argues that the adjudicator misapplied the law relating to latent defect and innocent misrepresentation, and the appellant challenges the adjudicator’s reliance on Bryson v. Egerton et al., [1999] B.C.J. No. 1581 (S.C.).