My best advice: purple ink is fine, unless they object, then find a color you both agree to.
Everything past this point assumes an adverse relationship. Think about the dismal shape of things. A contract is a meeting of the minds. 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 falls apart over the color of signature ink, that clouds the "meeting of minds", especially since I'll be excluding every other cause, read on.
But conduct is everything, which means context is everything. 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 conduct:
- Both parties' conduct before the signing (do they act like people wanting to make a deal?)
- both parties' conduct after the signing (are they fulfilling their part of the contract?)
If both parties acted like they wanted a deal, and then acted to perform the contract in the normal matter, then they accepted the signature, period. They can't accept then reject it.
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 did not accept your signature.
Further, the galaxy of facts must make it apparent that they (and you) have no ulterior motive, especially not an unlawful one.
- It's medical insurance and you just got diagnosed with a million dollar disease.
- They ran your credit 5 minutes after you signed and found it to be 340, (and that should have been part of pre-signing due diligence and it's too late now).
- Now that they've met you, they realize they must build a $6000 wheelchair ramp.
Those would indicate a deal that should be enforced, or voided with compensation because anti-purple is acting in bad faith.
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).
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.