Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?
<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>If the document does not specify that a certain pen color be used, is this true?</p>

<h2><strong>No, Specific Ink Colors are not Required</strong></h2>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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. </p>

<p>My best advice: purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to. </p>

<p>Everything past this point assumes an adverse relationship.  Think about the dismal shape of things.  <strong>A contract is a meeting of the minds</strong>.  A contract-breaking dispute has arisen over the color of ink on the contract.  Anti-purple is saying the contract is not signed, so is invalid.   If parties' willingness to work with each other <em>falls apart over the color of signature ink</em>, that clouds the "meeting of minds", especially since I'll be excluding every other cause, read on. </p>

<p><strong>But conduct is everything, which means context is everything</strong>.  Which makes it impossible to give a generic answer.  It is about the galaxy of facts particular to this case.   First we must look at <em>conduct</em>: </p>

<ul>
<li>Both parties' conduct before the signing (do they act like people wanting to make a deal?) </li>
<li>both parties' conduct after the signing (are they fulfilling their part of the contract?) </li>
</ul>

<p>If both parties acted like they wanted a deal, and <strong>then acted to perform the contract</strong> in the normal matter, then they accepted the signature, period.  They can't accept <em>then</em> reject it.  </p>

<p>Their only hope would be, starting at the moment of signing, to act like the signature is invalid.  Absolute refusal to fulfill the contract, mailing you copies of the contract and asking you to sign them, doing that and including a nice black pen, a certified letter that the contract is not valid, stuff like that.  They must continuously look, walk and quack like someone who <strong>did not</strong> accept your signature.  </p>

<p>Further, the galaxy of facts must make it apparent that they <em>(and you)</em> have no ulterior motive, <em>especially not an unlawful one</em>. </p>

<ul>
<li>It's medical insurance and you just got diagnosed with a million dollar disease.</li>
<li>They ran your credit 5 minutes after you signed and found it to be 340, (and that should have been part of <em>pre-signing</em> due diligence and it's too late now). </li>
<li>Now that they've met you, they realize they must build a $6000 wheelchair ramp.</li>
</ul>

<p>Those would indicate a deal that should be enforced, or voided with compensation because anti-purple is acting in bad faith. </p>

<p>Conversely purple-signer must have no ulterior motive.  If they used purple because it is a racial, cultural, religious etc. insult to the counterparty, that paints a picture of a signing that is a pretense-to-insult and not a proper meeting of the minds (which could be rebutted by purple's genuine business needs, e.g. If purple is building a solarium and the contract is for glass to their needed dimensions).  </p>

<p>Other than that, you have a demented ego battle between very, very petty counterparties.  If they refuse to settle, that is effectively both asking a judge which party needs a legal smackdown, and the judge is likely to give a candid and inclusive answer.  </p>

<blockquote>
  <p>someone told me that writing in purple is not valid on legal documents.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

<p>*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.</p>

<p>Also see a <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/a/38348/3754">related answer</a> for a related question.</p>

<p>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.</p>

united-states contract-law new-york-state signature