In the case James Drummond v E.H. Van Ingen (case where the dye in the cloth ran when wet), the court held that the purchaser:

• A. had an obligation to inspect the cloth at the time of purchase and did not do so

• B. could not succeed in its action against the defendant for a defect in the cloth it should have found upon inspection

• C. could not seek a remedy against the seller of the cloth as there was no privity of contract between the tailor and the manufacturer

• D. had performed its obligation of inspection with due care and diligence, in an ordinary way, with the knowledge possessed by merchants of that class at that time