Whenever one want to sign a document, one will typically use black ink pen to do it. When there is no black ink pen, then there will be question on whether blue ink is allowable. Somehow, instinctively, one is more comfortable with black ink pen. This instinct could be developed after one is encouraged by few parties, e.g. bank, e.g. property agent, to sign important documents with black ink pen. Have you ever think WHY is black ink pen encouraged? WHY is it a must? or IS IT a must? I have never question about this. I am also one of those who instinctly feel black ink pen should be used to sign important documents until I have two encounters that I start questioning about WHY.
First incident, I brought one original document and another photocopy of the original. The original was signed with black ink pen. Since the photocopy is very good quality, it is almost impossible to notice that it is not a photocopy. The officer who was examining in front of me took few very close look on the signature. I actually was not sure what he was doing that time. The photocopy document in the end passed the examination.
Second incident, I brought one original and one photocopy again but this time with original signed with blue ink pen. So, this time, it was obvious there was a photocopy. The officer was not checking the signature in details anymore but directly rejected the photocopy at first glance. He told me, photocopy was not accepted. It was only then I understood why the examination during first incident took some time. Apparently, it was to examine the originality of the signature.
On the way out, I was thinking how good it would be if the signature was in black ink and my photocopy will definitely be passed. When I was going to lock my mind to always use black ink pen for signature, security concern came into my mind. "Wait a minute. If I can manipulate the documents that are signed by black ink, that means other could do that too." Immediately, I realized there was a security breach with black ink signature. There, I started to do a quick search on signature ink color.
According to
investopedia, the wrong-color ink can be black as it challenges document's validity as black ink is most widely-used printer-ink color. Therefore, blue ink is preferred as it is harder to reproduce and easier to spot on paper that's typically filled with lots of black (filled) ink. This piece of information is shared everywhere in the Google. I am quite surprised of this knowledge not known to me until now as it seems to be a very common knowledge and how insecure it is to use black ink for legal documents.
With this knowledge, it makes sense to me now of few observations. First, business chop should always be blue color. Second, some legal documents are signed with blue ink and it is totally fine to do so even though commonly it is requested to sign with black ink. Third, it is requested to initiate every single page of S&P document, it could prevent patching the old signature page onto new S&P document. In fact, all legal documents has this security breach if only the signature page is signed/initiated.
The next time you sign a legal document, think deeper. Try sign it with blue ink if possible, to be more accurate is to sign the legal document with an ink color different from the printed ink color. To be safer, consult a lawyer as they know best what would most likely be the security breach with signature color ink, what do and what don't. Know more to protect ourselves from unknown threat.
If you're a lawyer yourself, it is appreciated if you can share your knowledge on this area for the beneficial of the reader here too. Thank you in advance.
