Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
provides that dealers who violate the statute are subject to civil penalties. The statute does not void transactions that violate the statute. See, e.g., Royal Indem. Ins. Co. v. Shue, 134 Ind.App. 322, 327, 182 N.E.2d 796, 799 (1962) ("Failure to strictly comply with title conveyancing statutes does not affect transfer of ownership of a motor vehicle. The certificate of title is not of itself proof of ownership or legal title to the vehicle.") Although the failure to comply with Ind.Code § 9-17-8-8 may, combined with other suspicious cireumstances, raise questions about a purchaser's good faith, we find no such cireumstances here. Consequently, the Medleys were good faith purchasers for value pursuant to Ind. Code § 26-1-2-403. See, e.g., DBC Capital Fund, 551 N.E.2d at 477 . Lastly, Marlow also argues that the Medleys
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
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 purchaser of used car from dealer was buyer in ordinary course under sections 9307 and 2403 even though lender still held certificate of title
C. holding that purchaser was buyer in the ordinary course despite fact that lender still held mso
D. 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
E. holding that a purchaser of a vehicle was a buyer in the ordinary course of business even though the car dealer did not provide the certificate of title at the time of the sale
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.