In Carter v. Seaboard Finance Co. (1949) 33 Cal.2d 564, the Supreme Court upheld a judgment for the defendant as to the plaintiff's fraud cause of action. (Id. at p. 570.) There, the plaintiff bought a truck from the defendant that turned out to have a faulty motor. (Id. at p. 569.) Prior to buying the truck, the plaintiff had the opportunity to not only inspect it several times himself but also to have a mechanic inspect it. (Id. at p. 570.) The plaintiff also had the opportunity to drive the vehicle for half an hour. (Ibid.) The plaintiff in Carter had every opportunity to learn of the problem with the motor through his own numerous inspections, which appear to have been complete. The addition of the mechanic's inspection, and the fact that the plaintiff had the opportunity to drive the car, reinforce the notion of the plaintiff's reliance on his own inspections.