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.

If Jamila's car was stolen prior to delivery to Slick Sid's, and no one at the car dealership knew, what kind of title did Slick Sid's have?

Void

Voidable, if no manager of Slick Sid's had made an affirmative representation that the car was not stolen.

Voidable, if Slick Sid's can prove that none of its representatives were negligent in disregarding evidence of the theft at any time prior to its resale to Jamila.

Good

Voidable, if Slick Sid's can prove that it had never been charged with dealing in stolen merchandise.