Signing a Blank Document
Al-Sanhuri’s Opinion on Signing in Blank
Al-Sanhuri’s Opinion on the Evidentiary Value of a Signature in Blank
“A person may place his signature on a private document before it is written; in that case, it is said that he signed in blank. By doing so, he intends to entrust the other party with writing above the signature the particulars whose essential elements they had agreed upon, leaving that party to complete their details on specified bases. An example is where a person signs a cheque in blank for the benefit of another person who maintains a current account with him, entrusting that person to insert the number representing the value of the cheque, up to the amount available to the cheque signatory in the current account after it has been settled. Accordingly, the person who signs in blank has placed his trust in the other party and relied on that party’s honesty. This is where the danger of signing in blank arises if the person entrusted with the signature breaches that trust.
In any event, signing in blank is valid. It gives the particulars subsequently written above the signature the evidentiary force of a private document. As previously explained, that force derives from the signature, not from the writing; therefore, it makes no difference whether the document was written before or after the signature. What matters is that the person signing the document signs it in his own handwriting and intends, by signing it, to be bound by the particulars that will appear in the document.
However, a person entrusted with such a signature must act honestly and must not place in the document particulars other than those agreed upon with the signatory; otherwise, that person will be criminally punished.
From a civil-law perspective, the burden of proving that the signed blank document was delivered and that the recipient abused the trust placed in him rests on the person who signed in blank, subject to the established rules of evidence.
Once the blank document is written after being signed, its evidentiary value becomes that of a private document that was signed only after it had been completed. The debtor nevertheless retains the right to prove that he delivered his signature in blank to the creditor and that what the creditor wrote above the signature was not what they had agreed upon. Such proof is governed by the general rules; that is, the contrary of what is written may not be proved except by writing. If this is proven, the document loses its evidentiary force between the parties. It does not, however, lose that force against a good-faith third party. Thus, a person who dealt with the recipient of the document while believing it to be valid—for example, where it was transferred to that person—may rely on the document’s evidentiary force against the person who signed in blank, while the signatory may seek recourse against the person who misused his signature.
But if the signature in blank itself was obtained without the signatory’s knowledge, and the signatory did not intend to deliver his signature in blank to the person who misused it, but that person obtained it clandestinely, the signature itself is invalid and the document is void. The person who misused the signature is subject to the penalty for forgery (Article 340 of the Penal Code). The signatory may prove this misappropriation by all means, including testimony and presumptions, because he is proving fraud. Once this is established, the document loses its evidentiary force against him after its invalidity has been revealed. Moreover, a good-faith third party who dealt with the person who misappropriated the signature on the basis that the document was valid cannot rely on the document’s evidentiary force against the signatory. The signatory did not deliver his signature in blank to the person who misappropriated it, as in the previous case; rather, the signature was taken from him through misappropriation, so no negligence can be attributed to him.”
(Prof. Dr. Abd Al-Razzaq Al-Sanhuri – Al-Wasit fi Sharh Al-Qanun Al-Madani – Volume One – Part 2 – General Theory of Obligations – Dar Masr Edition, 2021 – pp. 158 to 161)
Under the supervision of Baghdadi Lawyers
Baghdadilaw.co