Is a purchaser required to inspect and discover a patent defect?

The learned trial judge refers to Cardwell v. Perthen, 2006 BCSC 333, 41 R.P.R. (4th) 118, where Ballance J. states at ¶122: The distinction between patent and latent defects is central to a vendor’s obligation of disclosure under the doctrine. Patent defects are those that can be discovered by conducting a reasonable inspection and making reasonable inquiries about the property. The authorities provide some guidance about the extent of the purchaser’s obligation to inspect and make inquiries. The extent of that obligation is, in some respects, the demarcation of the distinction between latent and patent defects. In general, there is a fairly high onus on the purchaser to inspect and discover patent defects. This means that a defect which might not be observable on a casual inspection may nonetheless be patent if it would have been discoverable upon a reasonable inspection by a qualified person … In some cases, it necessitates a purchaser retaining the appropriate experts to inspect the property … [Internal citations omitted.]