That in fact happens all time time with signatures...
A signature can be used to validate the existence and legitimacy of a contract and the terms contained within a specific version of a contract, so disputes over signatures happen quite frequently. Indeed, DocuSign spent years establishing that their system could be used to authenticate signatures and the documents they were attached to so they could break into the legal market.
It's not just a nice story. Law students learn about the importance of signatures on contracts during their first few weeks of law school.
Try getting a contract honored without a signature. You'll get laughed out of court. And unless they're you're best bud, you'll get laughed at by your counterparty for your naivete. Good luck proving the existence of an agreement with a piece of paper that the other party disputes.
I tried reading how to use DocuSign with eIDAS for a Qualified signature, which is the legal requirement in the EU. And it is such a mess that the DocuSign documentation [1] links to a page at passkeys.dev [2] which explicitly states in the first paragraph that it should not be linked to from user-facing documentation...
Where does the requirement come from? eIDAS regulation [0] establishes different signature profiles, from which qualified is the strongest, but doesn't say you can't use advanced or the basic electronic "draw here" kind of signature with no cryptography.
Sure, some national laws may require qualified with long term storage and implement it as part of closed document system, but people use less-than-qualified documents all the time.
A signature can be used to validate the existence and legitimacy of a contract and the terms contained within a specific version of a contract, so disputes over signatures happen quite frequently. Indeed, DocuSign spent years establishing that their system could be used to authenticate signatures and the documents they were attached to so they could break into the legal market.