Originals vs. Copies

I'm involved in a logistically complicated (though substantively easy) transaction essentially guaranteeing a debt. There are three parties who need to sign, in three different states. Each signatory needs to sign in three places. After much hassling, we've finally gotten the last signed page back and all we have to do now is courier around the signed completed documents so everyone's got one.

It would have been great if everyone who had to sign had signed three copies of each of the three documents, so that everyone in the transaction would have documents with blue ballpoint signatures instead of photocopies of those blue ballpoint signatures. But of course that didn't happen. We have one original set that everyone's signed (on separate signature pages, of course).

The other party requested that I return to them two copies of "signed originals" of one document, and one of the other. I can't do that; I only have one set of "signed originals" of anything. So they'll have to get reproductions, and so will we.

My question: Does it really matter? Has anyone, anywhere, ever been involved in a situation where possession of the blue-ballpoint signature pages, as opposed to the photocopied images of those blue ballpoint signatures, actually made any difference? I've noticed that great pains are taken to give everyone blue ballpoint signature copies, where possible, and I've always wondered why. Can anyone help?

[Update: Okay, I know that a Note has to be the actual signature. That makes sense. When else does it matter?]

Comments

[Vidiot]

I've wondered that myself. I recently sold some real estate (and had to handle the whole thing by mail) and was surprised to see that I had to use blue ballpoint ink for everything. Does that make a signature somehow more binding? (I usually use a purple fountain pen and had to go out and get a 79-cent Bic.)

[TPB, Esq.]

Property and Custody Agreements; easily solved, however, by attaching an Affidavit of facsimile signature to whatever signatures you can't get originals of... I do that whenever my clients can't come into the office to sign complaints.

[Bryan Sims]

The only time that I can think that an original would be required would be if there is an allegation of forgery. I had this possibility in one case and the document examiner that I spoke to told me that part of the examination process is an examination of the original signature for pressure, etc.

[Carrie]

I'm surprised just hearing it has to be "blue" ink. When I worked in law, everything had to be "BLACK INK ONLY" -- had something to do with storing docs on microfiche for historical preservation. They said anything but "black ink" could not be picked up by microfiche.

To this day I wonder if I was the victim of a prank by an over-anal law clerk or what..lol

[ret]

I believe that the blue ink is to make the document negotiable and the black ink makes the document non negotiable in the commercial venue . As such with all government contracts . this maybe would explain the true reseason photo coping . it has something to do with civil contracts .

[Johnny]

Blue ink is to make sure it isn't a carbon copy as seen in the days of typewriters. Black ink is okay in today's world.

[Phillip]

Blue ink will distinguish that the document is the original. When it is black ink you cannot tell if it is an original or a photocopy. A lot of legal documents not done in the attorney's office or in a title office are required to be in blue to confirm that the documents are originally signed.