47

Can I sign legal documents with a smiley face? Yes, that is lawful. A person's signature does not necessarily have to include the person's name or initials. What matters is that the signature reliably and unequivocally identifies the person who produces it, which apparently you have been able to prove by showing your driver's license. The Black's Law ...


41

The contract remains valid. Most contracts don't need to be written at all. Even if yours did need to be written under the Statute of Frauds or some other law, you're saying that it was made in writing, even though you later tore it up. The fact that the contract is missing or destroyed doesn't change the fact that it exists and obligates the parties; it ...


33

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 ...


29

The only documents that lose their validity when the original is physically destroyed sufficiently are: Last Wills and Testaments (this can be overcome if it is shown that it was destroyed without an intent to revoke the Will, e.g., in a house fire that also killed the testator or testatrix). Currency. Live checks not yet deposited with a financial ...


19

Signing a document is totally overrated. Is there an offer, is there consideration, is there a meeting of the minds, and was there acceptance? I assume that someone gave you a piece of paper with some mutual promises. You signing the contract is a form of proof of your acceptance. You signing a contract and then immediately ripping it up indicates that you ...


16

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 ...


9

The validity of the execution of a contract is governed by the law of the place where it was signed. A location next to the date establishes that place and hence often, the governing law for the validity of that signature. If the contract does not expressly state what law governs, the contract itself is governed by the law of the place where the last ...


8

Generally a signature is binding even if you have not read the document you have signed; as far as the law is concerned you should have and it's too bad for you if you didn't. Of course, this presumes the contract is otherwise valid. In the circumstances you describe you should ask to see the document before signing. If that is not possible, then instead of ...


8

You would be amazed at how vanishingly few the number of cases are where a signature is disputed. Signatures are easy, quick and don't require you having inky fingers all the time. They are so useful that to throw them out to deal with infinintesimally small fractions of disputes over their veracity (bearing in mind that 99.999999999% of contracts never ...


8

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 ...


7

The primary question, in case of such a lawsuit, is whether you accepted the terms of the contract. You could accept the terms verbally, or you could accept them with a signature, or you could even accept by behavior (such as showing up to work). If you breach the contract and you want to make the argument that you didn't accept the offer (or some ...


6

I disagree with Dale M's answer. Short Answer Maybe. The contract might or might not be enforceable depending on the evidence produced by the parties. Explanation Meeting of the minds Contracts must meet specific requirements in order to be enforceable. Being "signed" is not one of those requirements. But having a "meeting of the minds" is. ...


6

At common law you do not need to sign a contract for it to be legally enforceable; it doesn't even have to be written down. Local real estate law may require a lease to be in writing (and possibly even signed). Putting that aside generally, the purpose of signing a contract is to: Show the intention to be legally bound. This is superfluous: they have sent ...


6

Fingerprinting as a reliable and widely acknowledged means of identification only dates to about 1879 CE. Signatures have been in wide use for many, many centuries and were preceded by the use of official seals (a practice still in use in Japan). So, the use of signatures was deeply entrenched in the legal system long before fingerprinting existed, and ...


5

tl;dr: It depends on what the agreement is about. The form required for a document varies with the type of agreement or contract. This will depend on jurisdiction and specifics, but general rules are: In most jurisdictions, in general a valid contract does not need to be in writing, let alone with a personal signature - it can be entered into verbally, ...


5

There's a good discussion on "electronic" signatures at Wikipedia. Electronic signatures have been used for a very long time and the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled that telegraphs could be used as valid contracts back in 1869. The article linked above provides links to a large number of international jurisdictions and their electronic signature laws. ...


5

Contract validity does not depend on a signature at all, regardless of its type. Signatures are just a good way of showing that a given party agrees to the terms of a contract recorded by a given document, that shortcut the need for an independent third party to verify any and all contracts. An agreement can be implied or explicit that the parties consider ...


5

Every state except New York, Illinois, and Washington has adopted the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, and those three states have adopted their own electronic signature laws. At the federal level, a law known as ESIGN provides that electronic signatures are valid, and preempts state laws unless the state has adopted UETA or has its own electronic ...


4

Is it legal to send a document with your signature claiming to be somebody else? Is it legal to allow somebody to sign a document "for you" (using your name)? I'll answer these two questions together. It depends on what laws apply to the specific document. For example: For a contract for the sale of land, the Statute of Frauds requires a signature. ...


4

To expand on Dale's answer, the general principle applying to acceptance are as follows: The offeree's clear and absolute expression of intention and assent must be made in response to, and must exactly match, the terms of the offer. This expression must be communicated with the offeror in order to be effective. This means that a verbal contract is just ...


4

Signing as a witness will not generally make you liable on a contract. But, if you sign as a witness to something that you did not in fact witness, you could be liable for fraud or negligent misrepresentation is someone suffers harm as a result of you untrue statement that you witnessed the document being signed. Update: Usually you would be sued for ...


4

You appear to be conflating two different legal concepts: evidence and proof. evidence something that furnishes proof: testimony; specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter proof the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact So evidence is presented to a tribunal who ...


4

The fact that it is possible to engage in fraud, doesn't mean that it is impossible to prove something. Usually, in a civil action, testimony that a business record says something and that it was not falsified is sufficient to meet a preponderance of the evidence standard (i.e. to establish to the satisfaction of a judge or jury that it is more likely that ...


4

The issues you describe have existed with signatures from the beginning of their use. There exists a tradeoff between ease of use and reliability, both of forgery and of people falsely claiming forgery. Originally, the closest thing to a signature was the use of seals and signet rings. While relatively hard to forge, it only showed that the possessor of the ...


4

In contrast to the US, where I live in Europe only the written surname (first name optional) is considered a valid signature (in most cases). Some documents, like a Last Will, even need to be signed with your full name, including middle name(s). It is possible though to use any sign as your legal signature if the sign is registered and affirmed by a notary. ...


3

Common Law Contracts Contracts do not have to be signed. They do not even have to be written down. In fact, the overwhelming majority of contracts entered into are not written – when did you last sign a contract to buy a cup of coffee? See What is a contract and what is required for them to be valid? A contract is an enforceable agreement. It exists ...


3

You can ask a law enforcement officer or district attorney to press charges. Generally, you cannot do so yourself. In practice, this kind of allegation is almost never criminally prosecuted. A prosecution would be particularly unlikely if the witnesses and/or notary confirmed his story that it was your father's signature or was authorized, and if the lawyer ...


3

For a contract to exist one of the criteria is that the parties agree to be legally bound. There is no requirement for a contract to be signed, initialed or even written down (some exceptions apply e.g. real estate). The purpose of signing (or initialing) a document is to provide evidence that you have seen and read it and agree to it - this only matters if ...


3

By producing sufficient evidence at trial. In this case, the most likely sources of evidence would either be eye witnesses (if someone witnessed the forgery) or expert testimony (i.e., handwriting experts). Any experts would have done an analysis and would testify about the results of their analysis. Any eye witnesses would testify to what they personally ...


3

The usual situation in which this occurs is where a contract existed where one party delivered immediately, and the other party has an ongoing obligation. The contract exists for the benefit of the party who still has to receive such compensation. This party can usually decide to relinquish their claim. In these cases, the intentional physical destruction ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible