"I tried a digital signature anyway"

Do you mean:

A) a cryptographic signature?

B) an image of your handwritten signature?

C) something else?

I think you and GP might be talking about different things.

Presumably B).

I’ve had many instances where people insist I print, sign, scan, rather than e-sign.

I too have put an image of my signature on the pdf rather than printing; I have had those both rejected and accepted.

I don’t have a printer and have been annoyed by this insistence greatly. Enough that seeing this post filled me with glee.

I meant B.

When companies ask for signatures to be done in a certain way, it’s often not because those things are a requirement to be a valid contract under the law, but because they want more evidence to support them should the contract be brought into question in court.

You could theoretically, in some cases, run a business on nothing but verbal contracts, but you would be foolish to do so because you’d have difficulty proving anything if it were disputed.

This is wrong, in the US an electronic signature can be just about anything. See my comment here https://hackertimes.com/item?id=30025456

What exactly is wrong? This doesn't contradict what I said. I agree my signature was valid without printing. It's frustrating that businesses do not.

edit: I see that I misinterpreted the parent comment. Sorry.

Yup, there was a literal act of congress that made e-signatures legally valid but it's not worth arguing with anyone who asks for an "ink" signature ime.