Must Legal Documents Be Siged In Standard Pen Colors?
I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid.
I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?
united-states contract-law new-york
New contributor
add a comment |
I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid.
I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?
united-states contract-law new-york
New contributor
add a comment |
I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid.
I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?
united-states contract-law new-york
New contributor
I have a question as to whether or not legal documents signed in non standard pen colors (Anything other than blue or black) are valid.
I carry a purple pen around that use for everyday writing tasks, and when I was going to sign a document, someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?
united-states contract-law new-york
united-states contract-law new-york
New contributor
New contributor
edited 1 hour ago
David Siegel
14k2754
14k2754
New contributor
asked 7 hours ago
Sarah SzaboSarah Szabo
1161
1161
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required
That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement.
It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to comply.
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
This is likely a misconception since most forms say use blue or black ink, but there is no law regulating a valid signature. In the US you can sign with an "X", a fingerprint, a yellow crayon if so inclined, a wax stamp, pencil, or even invisible ink* as long as it is meant to show valid acceptance. The objective is to demonstrate that you have agree to the terms in the agreement. Now the contract could stipulate blue or black in for valid acceptance of the agreement but this is on part of the offering party and must be stipulated prior to acceptance, not part of the law.
*Invisible ink may fail the communication requirement for contracts unless the other party is made aware of how to inspect the signature such as examination under UV light.
Also see a related answer for a related question.
add a comment |
Contracts, as a general rule, don`t even have to be written to be valid. But, some have to be because a law very often exists requiring this. The color ink used is normally irrelevant to its validity, unless the contract states otherwise or a statute (law). Courts usually have local rules requiring signatures on all documents be in either blue or black ink, but most banks will accept a signature on a check signed in any color.
New contributor
add a comment |
A contract is a meeting of the minds. If your mind hasn't met theirs, then do not sign it simple as that.*
Pen color is part of the "meeting of the minds". If they don't accept your signature as valid, then you don't have an agreement and you don't have a contract. However, they need to object at a relevant time, i.e. when they first see the contract.
So purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
* Particularly with stock contracts where you cannot haggle the wording, such as a cellphone contract. I mention that because sometimes people do passive-aggressive weird stuff instead of refusing to sign. They should refuse to sign if that's how they feel.
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "617"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sarah Szabo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38356%2fmust-legal-documents-be-siged-in-standard-pen-colors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required
That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement.
It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to comply.
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required
That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement.
It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to comply.
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required
That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement.
It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to comply.
No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required
That is not correct. If the purple will not photocopy well, the other party might reasonably ask for a color that will. But a signature is normally only evidence of agreement to the provisions, and it is the agreement that is legally important. The color of the ink used does not change the agreement.
It is normal to expect a signature to be in a permanent ink. A signature in pencil or erasable ink might be legal, but the other party will not want to accept it, and it would be reasonable to comply.
edited 3 hours ago
answered 7 hours ago
David SiegelDavid Siegel
14k2754
14k2754
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
I'd like to point out that it's probably a bad idea to sign in pencil anyway, since it might smudge. If you want to prove something was definitely you later, you're going to want something immutable.
– Riker
3 hours ago
4
4
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
It might be a good idea to rehash the heading of your answer. While you do answer the statement at the end of the question, right now at a glance when reading the question title and this answer, it reads as "Can legal documents be signed in non-standard pen colors?" "No".
– Nit
3 hours ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
If the question contains contradictory statements as to whether a yes or no answer is correct, then it's the question that needs its title fixed.
– Nij
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
@Nij done! Question fixed
– David Siegel
1 hour ago
add a comment |
someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
This is likely a misconception since most forms say use blue or black ink, but there is no law regulating a valid signature. In the US you can sign with an "X", a fingerprint, a yellow crayon if so inclined, a wax stamp, pencil, or even invisible ink* as long as it is meant to show valid acceptance. The objective is to demonstrate that you have agree to the terms in the agreement. Now the contract could stipulate blue or black in for valid acceptance of the agreement but this is on part of the offering party and must be stipulated prior to acceptance, not part of the law.
*Invisible ink may fail the communication requirement for contracts unless the other party is made aware of how to inspect the signature such as examination under UV light.
Also see a related answer for a related question.
add a comment |
someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
This is likely a misconception since most forms say use blue or black ink, but there is no law regulating a valid signature. In the US you can sign with an "X", a fingerprint, a yellow crayon if so inclined, a wax stamp, pencil, or even invisible ink* as long as it is meant to show valid acceptance. The objective is to demonstrate that you have agree to the terms in the agreement. Now the contract could stipulate blue or black in for valid acceptance of the agreement but this is on part of the offering party and must be stipulated prior to acceptance, not part of the law.
*Invisible ink may fail the communication requirement for contracts unless the other party is made aware of how to inspect the signature such as examination under UV light.
Also see a related answer for a related question.
add a comment |
someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
This is likely a misconception since most forms say use blue or black ink, but there is no law regulating a valid signature. In the US you can sign with an "X", a fingerprint, a yellow crayon if so inclined, a wax stamp, pencil, or even invisible ink* as long as it is meant to show valid acceptance. The objective is to demonstrate that you have agree to the terms in the agreement. Now the contract could stipulate blue or black in for valid acceptance of the agreement but this is on part of the offering party and must be stipulated prior to acceptance, not part of the law.
*Invisible ink may fail the communication requirement for contracts unless the other party is made aware of how to inspect the signature such as examination under UV light.
Also see a related answer for a related question.
someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.
This is likely a misconception since most forms say use blue or black ink, but there is no law regulating a valid signature. In the US you can sign with an "X", a fingerprint, a yellow crayon if so inclined, a wax stamp, pencil, or even invisible ink* as long as it is meant to show valid acceptance. The objective is to demonstrate that you have agree to the terms in the agreement. Now the contract could stipulate blue or black in for valid acceptance of the agreement but this is on part of the offering party and must be stipulated prior to acceptance, not part of the law.
*Invisible ink may fail the communication requirement for contracts unless the other party is made aware of how to inspect the signature such as examination under UV light.
Also see a related answer for a related question.
answered 6 hours ago
TTETTE
1,2321127
1,2321127
add a comment |
add a comment |
Contracts, as a general rule, don`t even have to be written to be valid. But, some have to be because a law very often exists requiring this. The color ink used is normally irrelevant to its validity, unless the contract states otherwise or a statute (law). Courts usually have local rules requiring signatures on all documents be in either blue or black ink, but most banks will accept a signature on a check signed in any color.
New contributor
add a comment |
Contracts, as a general rule, don`t even have to be written to be valid. But, some have to be because a law very often exists requiring this. The color ink used is normally irrelevant to its validity, unless the contract states otherwise or a statute (law). Courts usually have local rules requiring signatures on all documents be in either blue or black ink, but most banks will accept a signature on a check signed in any color.
New contributor
add a comment |
Contracts, as a general rule, don`t even have to be written to be valid. But, some have to be because a law very often exists requiring this. The color ink used is normally irrelevant to its validity, unless the contract states otherwise or a statute (law). Courts usually have local rules requiring signatures on all documents be in either blue or black ink, but most banks will accept a signature on a check signed in any color.
New contributor
Contracts, as a general rule, don`t even have to be written to be valid. But, some have to be because a law very often exists requiring this. The color ink used is normally irrelevant to its validity, unless the contract states otherwise or a statute (law). Courts usually have local rules requiring signatures on all documents be in either blue or black ink, but most banks will accept a signature on a check signed in any color.
New contributor
New contributor
answered 3 hours ago
JohnJohn
1
1
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
A contract is a meeting of the minds. If your mind hasn't met theirs, then do not sign it simple as that.*
Pen color is part of the "meeting of the minds". If they don't accept your signature as valid, then you don't have an agreement and you don't have a contract. However, they need to object at a relevant time, i.e. when they first see the contract.
So purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
* Particularly with stock contracts where you cannot haggle the wording, such as a cellphone contract. I mention that because sometimes people do passive-aggressive weird stuff instead of refusing to sign. They should refuse to sign if that's how they feel.
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
add a comment |
A contract is a meeting of the minds. If your mind hasn't met theirs, then do not sign it simple as that.*
Pen color is part of the "meeting of the minds". If they don't accept your signature as valid, then you don't have an agreement and you don't have a contract. However, they need to object at a relevant time, i.e. when they first see the contract.
So purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
* Particularly with stock contracts where you cannot haggle the wording, such as a cellphone contract. I mention that because sometimes people do passive-aggressive weird stuff instead of refusing to sign. They should refuse to sign if that's how they feel.
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
add a comment |
A contract is a meeting of the minds. If your mind hasn't met theirs, then do not sign it simple as that.*
Pen color is part of the "meeting of the minds". If they don't accept your signature as valid, then you don't have an agreement and you don't have a contract. However, they need to object at a relevant time, i.e. when they first see the contract.
So purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
* Particularly with stock contracts where you cannot haggle the wording, such as a cellphone contract. I mention that because sometimes people do passive-aggressive weird stuff instead of refusing to sign. They should refuse to sign if that's how they feel.
A contract is a meeting of the minds. If your mind hasn't met theirs, then do not sign it simple as that.*
Pen color is part of the "meeting of the minds". If they don't accept your signature as valid, then you don't have an agreement and you don't have a contract. However, they need to object at a relevant time, i.e. when they first see the contract.
So purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
* Particularly with stock contracts where you cannot haggle the wording, such as a cellphone contract. I mention that because sometimes people do passive-aggressive weird stuff instead of refusing to sign. They should refuse to sign if that's how they feel.
answered 54 mins ago
HarperHarper
2,6451214
2,6451214
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
add a comment |
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
I don't think that the other party has grounds to object to a purple signature, nor that such objection, even if timely, means that there is no meeting of the minds and hence no contract, unless the ink color is specified as a term of the contract.
– David Siegel
48 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
@DavidSiegel If they don't accept your signature, then they are claiming you did not sign it. That is the very definition of "not a contract". Obviously this applies at initial signing; they can't accept the signature and later "unaccept" it merely as a pretense to back out of the contract.
– Harper
22 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Let me put it this way, then. Can you cite any source saying that one party can chosoe not to accept the format of the other party's signature to a contract, and this means that there is no contract? That is what you have asserted with no source. If you can, i'll withdraw my DV. If you can't, I encourage others to DV also.
– David Siegel
16 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
Note that the OP doesn't say s/he does this to express dissatisfaction with the contract, the OP says that s/he routinely signs ALL documents in purple, if possible. Indeed the OP might claim "It isn't my valid sig if not in purple".
– David Siegel
13 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
I get why you feel that way @DavidSiegel ... however it seems to me like you are DVing because you don't like the idea, not because you have any basis for it in law. In law it appears axiomatic to me, so I think yours is the bold claim that needs bold proof. I have no opinion of naysayers who send everyone else off to find cites, and bring none of their own.
– Harper
3 mins ago
add a comment |
Sarah Szabo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sarah Szabo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sarah Szabo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sarah Szabo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f38356%2fmust-legal-documents-be-siged-in-standard-pen-colors%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown