Venable Bought a Car from a Dealer

Venable bought a car from a dealer. SunTrust financed the purchase. Venable promised to make 75 monthly payments; the car could be taken by SunTrust is she failed to pay. After five years, SunTrust seized the car and sold it at auction. It sued Venable for the remainder owed on the debt. She argued that SunTrust acted improperly because there is a four-year statute of limitations under Article 2 of the USS. SunTrust argued that the six-year statute of limitation that applied to common-law contracts applied to the matter. The trial court agreed with SunTrust. The appeals court held that:

A) ​SunTrust was correct; the financing of the car was a common law contract, not an Article 2 UCC contract.
B) ​SunTrust was correct; the primary purpose of the contract was for financing, not the sale of a good, so the common law applied.
C) ​Venable was correct; the primary purpose of the contract was the sale of the car, so Article 2 of the UCC covered it.
D) ​Venable was correct; Article 2 covers all vehicle sales regardless of how the sale occurs and how the vehicle is financed.
E) ​none of the other choices are correct.