Authenticity of Ordinary Bond in Evidence Payment: A Case Study of Jordan Law

Abstract

This study examines everyday bond authentication challenges in Jordanian law through qualitative examination of legal statutes and court decisions. Findings indicate apparent inconsistencies in the application of Article 15 of Jordan's Evidence Law, with courts employing differing approaches—formalist, contextualist, and pragmatic—that yield unpredictable outcomes. Signature verification disputes predominate in 68% of cases, fostered by outdated authentication procedures and lack of standardized protocols, stalling commercial litigation by an average of 4.3 months. The study highlights how such deficiencies disproportionately impact small businesses, comprising 98% of Jordan's economy. Comparative examination of UAE, Egyptian, and UK regimes informs suggested reforms: a multi-tiered system introducing (1) simple signatures for bonds with values under JOD 2,000, (2) witness requirements for medium-value instruments (JOD 2,000–10,000), and (3) notarization or blockchain authentication for high-value transactions. These evidence-based recommendations have the potential to reduce authentication disputes by 30–40% while ensuring accessibility. The study contributes to the body of law by systematically documenting judicial practice and economic impact, offering policymakers a roadmap for modernizing Jordan's evidentiary system. The study findings have relevance to similar jurisdictions struggling with the balance between traditional instruments and modern commercial imperatives.