MGM Auto Sales Ltd (MGM), a company situated in Red Deer, Alberta, owned a truck that it wished to sell. A former employee named Bayliss informed MGM of a potential buyer-Frontline Ventures Inc (Frontline), a company situated in Kelowna, British Columbia. MGM had no prior knowledge of Frontline. On June 1, Bayliss arranged a conference call, during which Frontline agreed to purchase the truck from MGM for a price of $15 000. The parties also agreed that Bayliss would drive the truck from Red Deer to Kelowna, and that Frontline would courier a cheque to MGM on June 5. Bayliss did drive the vehicle to Kelowna, but in doing so, he caused a traffic accident that injured Leona Hammerton. That accident occurred on June 4. On June 5, Frontline inspected the truck, recognized that it had not been damaged in the accident, and sent a cheque to MGM as promised. Some time later, Hammerton sued Bayliss for the injuries that she suffered in the accident. Bayliss unfortunately was not insured at the relevant time. Hammerton therefore wants to take advantage of section 17(b) of the Uninsured Motorists Act, which states that liability for loss or injury caused by an uninsured driver falls upon the owner of the vehicle that the uninsured driver was operating. It therefore is necessary to determine which company owned the truck on June 4. MGM relies on the fact that the sales contract was created on June 1. Frontline relies on the fact that, within the used vehicle industry, vendors rarely are willing to pass title to a previously unknown buyer until full payment has been received. How would a court likely resolve this case? Explain your answer.