With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". virtually all cases to resolve disputes between a secured party and a subsequent purchaser of an automobile or aircraft. Such a solution will promote uniformity and will yield a workable and well conceived rule for these cases. Although both the certificate of title act and the federal act [relating to aircraft] have provisions which arguably govern this priority conflict, neither indicates that its drafters considered the unique policy issues involved. Id. Relying on either section 9-307 or section 2-403 of the UCC, courts in a number of other states have held in favor of a motor vehicle purchaser over a secured party, even when faced with statutory language identical to Minn.Stat. § 86B.825, subd. 5. See, e.g., Correria v. Orlando Bank & Trust Co., 235 So.2d 20 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1970) (<HOLDING>); Dugdale of Nebraska, Inc. v. First State

A: holding that a purchaser may be a buyer in the ordinary course and defeat a security interest even if no insistence that the mso accompany delivery
B: holding that where no evidence was designated to show that a car buyer knew that a sale violated the rights of the dealership that owned the car the buyers were buyers in the ordinary course of business for purposes of indcode  26112019
C: holding that purchaser of used car from dealer was buyer in ordinary course under sections 9307 and 2403 even though lender still held certificate of title
D: holding that purchaser was buyer in the ordinary course despite fact that lender still held mso
C.