I had an occasion to sign some legal documents yesterday. The office lady said I had to sign them in blue ink. I, of course, complied - don’t wanna get them office ladies ticked off! But it got me to wonderin’… I remember that blue ink wouldn’t copy with the older copy machines, but I think all the new generation copiers will. Can anyone think of any other reason for signing in blue ink? Maybe it’s to show that the paperwork I signed is an original and not a copy (which would show the signature as black)? Anyway, I was kinda hard-pressed to find a blue ink pen.
Because photocopies are so good now, it’s hard to tell the difference between a real signature in black ink, and the copy of one. Original documents are signed in blue to show that it’s the original.
BTW - a photocopy of a document is legal, as long as it’s also been signed by the signee in blue ink
I’m sure it’s legal if you sign in black ink–but how are you going to tell the original from the copy, if you want to keep the original.
Of course, these days color copiers are so good, you’d have trouble telling the difference between an original and a copy, even with a blue ink signature, so the reason for it is vanishing.
Pretty soon we’ll all need personalized ink pens that contain our DNA just like the POTUS! 
(Is that really how that works?)
In our office, we have “fancy” silk or cotton paper for documents such as invoices and purchase orders, so the you can tell the original by touch. (I’m sure you could copy onto that paper as well, but not in our office.)
Not quite the same situation, but where I worked (a contract pharmaceutical lab) both blue and black ink were accepted as legal in our notebooks and reports. I’d say that 95+% of people used black ink (because it was rare to see anything in blue). But then, we had rules that any photocopy was stamped "DRAFT"or “COPY” (depending on whether the final signature of approval was on it or not).
None of this has anything to do with a “legal” signature. The common law does not set any such requirements for signatures, whether it’s ink colour or even what is written. It doesn’t even have to be your own name to legally be your signature. In the common law, the only requirement for a legal signature is an intent to execute a legal signature. Sign your check “Mickey Mouse” or with your non-writing hand, it doesn’t matter; it’s still your signature and it’s valid for executing that document.
Certain individual concerns might have policies about how they want signatures written, but it has to do with their own efforts to prevent fraud or whatever. It has nothing to do with whether the signature is “legal.”
I was in just such a situation last Friday. Without rubbing the signatures and finding the one that smeared, the only way I could identify the original was it was the one where the notary stamp (ink) was visible on the back side of the paper.
Otherwise, the color copies were alarmingly good, and all parties had used various pens ranging from blue to purplish blue to black.
Looking for a “shine” in the copies was useless as the originals had been printed on the same network color printer / copier.
Ok, I’m sure that this is a really dumb question… but why is it a problem if someone photocopies a contract you’ve signed?
So far as I know it’s not a problem. However, there are times when people want to know which document is the “original.” Of course, with the advent of electronic contracting, the concept of “original” goes out the window.
Say you and I sign a contract that says I will pay you $100 to mow my lawn. You mow my lawn and present me with a bill for $1000. I refuse to pay and you sue me. Crafty you, you’ve altered a photocopy of the contract to read that I agreed to pay you $1000 instead of $100 and you present it as evidence.
That’s why photocopies of many (not all) legal documents are unacceptable. They are (or at least were) much more subject to alteration and forgery than an original.
Unacceptable? According to whom? Photocopies have been accepted as admissible evidence in court for a long time.
With the appropriate foundational testimony, sure. But as copies, not as the equivalent of originals for all purposes. Some (original) documents have independant legal significance. The most common example would be a note or check. Yes, you might be able to enforce a note under some circumstances if the original is gone by providing a copy and other appropriate testimony, but if the defendant denies signing it, or claims that the copy was altered, the plaintiff has a proof problem.
Similarly, document examiners generally require original signatures to render an opinion when the validity of a signature is in doubt. If only a copy of the challenged document is available, the plaintiff may not be able to get strong expert testimony that the signature is valid.
As someone has originally noted, it’s really easy to alter a document with a photocopier. I once defended a case where a broker/developer altered a letter of intent which had expired (but which had been signed by my client) to make it appear to be an enforceable, unexpired contract to sell a large tract of land. The original of the “contract” was conveniently missing.
Bottom line? You’d get the copy into evidence, but the weight (believablility) of that evidence would be diminished. Much better to have an original and avoid the hassle.
Admissibility in court as evidence is not the only criterion.
With respect to many legal papers, the physical document has legal significance.
For example, with a negotiable instrument such as a a bill of lading or a check, the original must be honored but a copy may not be honored. Otherwise, you could photocopy your paycheck and cash it twice.
Also, there is a tradition that original court papers, such as pleadings and affidavits, must be filed in court (as opposed to copies). I’m not sure why this is, but I suspect it harkens back to the days when copying techniques were not as accurate.
With respect to admissibility of copies, there is a concept known as the “best evidence rule” which holds that the original of a document is preferable to a copy. But copies are generally admissible if you have a good enough reason why the original document is unavailable.
In case of government records, you can usually get a “certified” copy which is just as good as the original.
Errr . . . strike what I said and replace it with “What Random said.”
Even though color copiers are almost good enough for counterfeiting purposes, they do not reproduce paper indentations or signature embossing. That is why it is good to use a ball point pen instead of felt tip.
I once prevailed in a court case because, even though I had submitted a photocopied document that was slightly incorrect, my signature was there in fresh blue ink, thus indicating a diligent attempt to comply with the letter of the law.
All of my daily carry pens have refills of blue ink.
In the Navy I knew a fellow - always the sucker for urban legends - who signed everything “John Smith U.D.”, so that he could later get out of whatever he agreed by saying he signed it “Under Duress”. :rolleyes:
UnuMondo
We fill out our tax returns in pencil, make photocopies when finished, and send signed photocopies to the I.R.S. One year they sent the return back claiming it didn’t have an original signature. But it did. Our only mistake was signing with a black pen. Since then we use blue or green.
Yeah, I’ve tried TurboTax but I’ve found that by the time I’ve installed and figured out how to use it I could do the taxes manually in about the same amount of time.
Certain courts and agencies codify this tradition as an administrative rule (usually expressed in terms requiring filing of “original” or “executed” papers). Some are more liberal than others as to what can constitute an “original.” With the advent of faxes et al., it’s my impression some sectors of officialdom are getting more flexible (e.g., accept a photocopy or fax, period, or accept a photocopy on an interim basis as long as the “real” execution page is swapped in later). Certain clerks have been known affirmatively to refuse copied filings, going so far as to lick their thumb and swipe a black signature to see if it smears (and thus is pen ink) – signing in blue averts all that.