of the sale, K & V had a duty to disclose to Brown in writing “in no smaller than 10 point type [that] ‘This vehicle’s title contains the designation “salvage” or “rebuilt”.’ ” Id.; see also Trailmobile, Inc. v. Cook, 540 So.2d 683 (Ala. 1988) (indicating that the Act established a standard of conduct for persons or corporations who come within its terms and created a duty for such persons or corporations to comply with the Act; such obligation is written into contracts by operation of the Act). The fact that Brown signed a number of documents indicating that she was purchasing the vehicle “as is” did not relieve K & V of its obligation to disclose to her that the vehicle was a salvage vehicle in accordance with § 32-8-87(p). See Danley v. Murphy, 658 So.2d 483 (Ala.Civ.App.1994) (<HOLDING>). We note that Danley v. Murphy, supra, was
holding that the validity of a contract for a commission for the sale of real estate is determined by the law of the state where the contract is made holding that plaintiffs were not entitled to an action for recision on contract for sale of real property based on fraud when they had treated contract as valid for more than a year after discovering the fraud holding that immunity from suit precluded claim for breach of contract for sale of county property and request for specific performance of contract holding that a claim arises from the purchase or sale of a security only if there is an allegation of fraud in the purchase sale or issuance of the  instrument recognizing that in certain circumstances a fraud claim is not necessarily precluded by an as is purchase contract for the sale of a used automobile that had a salvage title