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
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 holding that purchaser was buyer in the ordinary course despite fact that lender still held mso 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 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 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