Some lawyer friends I have (here in Australia) have told me that electronic signatures (of the kind like DocuSign and Adobe Sign that have you “adopt” a digital signature and click a “Sign” button) should only be used in situations where the other party’s actions soon after signing will confirm their intention to be bound by the document.
For example, if there is a sales contract and the buyer proceeds to pay the money, then that payment shows intent to follow the purchase agreement.
Or, if someone sends an email after signing saying “All done. I look forward to working with you.” — that has the same effect.
To use it for something where the other party will be doing nothing for a long time (like a guarantor on a loan or lease) or acting unpredictably (like a house tenant) would be very risky. The other party could easily use the defence of “I didn’t click the button… I didn’t even know about the contract.” even if they did know and did click the button.
So why use a digital signing system? Efficiency!
It’s quicker and easier. You can get dozens done with the same time & effort it takes to arrange a single wet signature. It’s multilingual. It’s automated. It’s fancy!
Having any signature, whether wet or digital, shows that your side is following proper process. The signing of a document is an important moment, and the specific date & time often has real commercial, accounting or legal ramifications. Even if you could easily show to a court that the other party has “agreed” without signing (e.g. via email, text, phone, etc) and is acting in accordance, it’s better to just avoid the court in the first place.
To summarise:
Wet signatures are best. The other party would be crazy to challenge them.
Digital signatures are better than just an email saying “I agree.” The other party would have to be brave to challenge one.
An email saying “I agree” is better than a handshake.
(Again, I’m not a lawyer! I would love to hear a lawyer’s opinion. Though, please do so anonymously — I don’t want anyone getting in trouble!)