Contracts and ink

[jbn10161]

I don't know if I've missed something in this thread, although I've reread it several times, but in the U.S., in every jurisdiction of which I'm aware (or, frankly, can imagine), it does not matter what you sign your name in. You could use blood, mud, or ink. What matters is that you signed it and that it appears that you signed it. Any ink that is reasonably lightfast and reasonably resistent to erasure would be fine, legally, although, as has been mentioned, some eyebrows would raise with anything other than blue or black. But my point is that it doesn't really matter if eyebrows raise, as long as it can be demonstrated, if challenged, that the document was signed and the signature was yours. As for photocopying, aside from the fact that most any photocopier made within the last five years will copy blue, the photocopyability of a signature is irrelevant. It is not even unusual to find copies that bear a mark indicating that the original was signed, rather than a photocopy of the original signature. The ability of a signature to be picked up by a scan is something I would be concerned with, not as a legal matter but as a practical matter. Blue has been picked up just fine by my scanners.

[DrPJM1]

On my checks, other documents and charts I use black, blue or brown inks. For legal documents Luxury blue only. Never had a problem.

[Tweel]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this: According to Nathan Tardif, American contract law requires that a signature be in blue ink in order to be valid. He used to have a little essay about this on his Noodler's homepage (http://home.earthlink.net/~noodlersink/index.html), but now he just gives a link to these Google search results:

 

"blue ink signature"

 

-- Brian

 

[jbn10161]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this: According to Nathan Tardif, American contract law requires that a signature be in blue ink in order to be valid.

Umm, not sure how to put this nicely, but Nathan Tardiff is not a recognized authority on "American contract law." First of all, there is no such thing as "American contract law," although there are certain common principles among the various states and federal jurisdictions. Second, no law requires blue ink for a signature. It is true that there are some specific procedures in which a regulation or a party to the transaction might specify blue ink in order to distinguish an original, but that's along the same line as a procedure or purchasing regulation that specifies that the buyer supply a business address. It's not a legal requirement generally for contracts, just a requirement by one party to a transaction. And even that limited type of requirement is very, very unusual. In fact, recent federal legislation in the U.S. provides that, in many circumstances, an electronic signature is valid and sufficient. Edited July 7, 2007 by jbn10161

[HesNot]

I agree with JBN - you can have an oral contract FWIW (although enforcing it is less than ideal). Particularly under the UCC any writing is sufficient as against the signer, or collection of writings, sufficient to evidence an agreement.

 

However, that being said, there are many banks and mortgage companies that have required certain inks for closing documents - some require black and some require blue (to distinguish copies more easily). Some official government offices, registers of deeds and the like, also may have certain requirements for documents which will be on the public record - generally driven as far as I know by the electronic reproduction issues.

 

Anyway - I tend toward dark blue, blue/black and black ink for many documents at work.

[Bill_D]

There is a general legal proposition that any mark intended to be your signature is binding. This was an important rule when many people were illiterate and signed with a mark rather than their signatures. Thus, under that rule, if you signed a contract "The second most handsome man in Trenton New Jersey" with a Canary Yellow crayon, it would be binding if you intended it to be your signature.

 

Today, contract law is governed by each state. I would be surprised if many, if any, states mandate a certain color for a signature. That doesn't mean that you won't get several people who tell you that you are "required" to sign in blue or black ink. Nor does it mean that it is a good idea to sign in pencil or watercolor paint. But as long as the signature is yours, it should not matter legally what color it is.

[Titivillus]

I agree, except that the different-coloured-ink idea was there as a practical form of fraud prevention, and it is no longer preventing fraud. I'm not saying that fraud is happening on a regular basis because of this, just that it is no longer being prevented as effectively.

 

Doesn't Diamante make a registrars ink that is used for official stuff?

 

K

 

[elalan]

I am a lawyer entering my third decade as a litigator. I sometimes make an effort to use blue ink so I personally can discern an original from a copy when I am looking at files (the original is often retained in the signor's file and filed with the court some time after it has been signed). Other than that, the color of ink is absolutley irrelevant in regards to legal significance. There is no 'requirement' that any particular color be used for anything. I attended a closing once where a closer said that the signatures had to be in black. She was told to be quiet and we proceeded with whatever pen was at hand. No one is going to refuse a transaction because of the color of the ink used by a signatory. Just because someone says something does not make it so. One of the more important legal documents is an 'Affidavit of Service', by which it is attested that a certain paper was delivered (via hand delivery, fax, mail, whatever) to a certain person. It is attached to every legal document filed in every court. They are invariably filled out by legal secretaries who are disproportionately fond of pink, red, orange, green and other non-blue/black colors. It is sort of an urban myth that signature pages are forged or substituted or parties to a contract attempt to use hijinks to alter its terms after parties have executed--I have never seen that situation arise personally nor encountered it in my research. As to the color of the ink on a will signature being dispositive of anything, the short answer is that would NEVER be an issue in a will contest. So, my considered legal advice, free of charge (and worth every bit of that), is use whatever color moves you at any given moment and if it requires you to defiantly stand up to The Man and assert your right to sign your closing papers in blended orange/pink then stand firm.

[Tweel]

...stand up to The Man... in blended orange/pink...

 

Good enough for me

 

-- Brian

[Viseguy]

As to the color of the ink on a will signature being dispositive of anything, the short answer is that would NEVER be an issue in a will contest.

If you're referring to my earlier remark about using orange ink to sign a will, I didn't suggest that it would be dispositive, only that an it might be asking for trouble (in the context of other, more substantial facts). I agree with you that that ink color is unlikely to be an issue in a will contest, but never say "never", I say.