Is a lack of perimeter drainage a patent defect?

In Bracic v. Prior (2003), 7 R.P.R. (4th) 262, 2003 BCSC 106 at para. 45, Warren J. found that water ingress into the basement of a home possibly caused by the lack of a perimeter drainage system was a patent defect: The plaintiff’s claim in contract requires that she establish a defect and, once established, it must be determined whether the defect is latent or patent. There is no remedy at law for a patent defect and the rule of caveat emptor is still the law. [Citations omitted]. The defect alleged by the plaintiff is the lack of a perimeter drainage system, but the plaintiff has not proven there was no perimeter drainage system. Even if there were no such system it would not be a defect as the home did not require such a system at the time it was constructed. In any event, it was patently obvious that the down spouts emptied onto the ground and everyone, including the plaintiff and her realtor saw that. Further enquiries could have addressed any concerns the plaintiff may have had, but none were made.