$[$Used Car Problems$]$ Jamila purchased a used car from Slick Sid's car dealership. Six months later the police seized the car from Jamila on the basis that it was a stolen vehicle. Jamila asked for her money back from Slick Sid's. The manager of Slick Sid's told her that the car was not stolen, but that even if it were, Slick Sid's acted in good faith with no knowledge of a theft; and that, therefore, Jamila, as a good$-$faith purchaser, had a good title. Slick Sid's had also sold a used car to Hiro who wrote a bad check for the car and left town, but not before selling the car to Doris. Doris purchased the car with no knowledge of any problem with the check. Slick Sid's asked Doris to return the car, but she refused. She explained that she had given the car to her son, Ricky.

Which statement is true regarding the manager's assertion that Jamila has a good title, assuming the car was in fact stolen?

The manager is incorrect because Jamila has void title.

The manager is correct only if Jamila can establish true consumer status meaning that she had not bought or sold over three cars in the previous six months.

The manager is incorrect because Jamila has voidable title.

The manager is correct:

The manager is correct only if Jamila can establish true consumer status meaning that she had not bought or sold over three cars in the previous year.