**Blind judgment: location-j1 (France, furnished main-residence lease, acting for the landlord, October 2026)**

**How I verified.** The Alpaca Law tools did not work: every call returned "No claude.ai OAuth token available". Légifrance returned 403 or a bot check, and the browser extension was not connected. So I checked authorities through Juricaf (which mirrors the official Cour de cassation decisions), ANIL, service-public.fr and secondary legal sources.

Web searches did not find any of the lower-court decisions I tried. That covered 4 of C's court of appeal (CA) rulings and 2 of A's trial-court (TJ) and CA rulings. Because Alpaca Law was down, the rubric does not let me call them non-existent. I treat them as unverified and do not penalise them.

**Strongest authorities for the central arguments**
1. **Late-payment penalty and €100 fines.** Art. 4 i) of the 1989 law, whose word "pénalités" was added by the ALUR law. The fallback is legal-rate interest under art. 1231-6 of the Civil Code. The old ruling Cass. 3e civ., 22 Nov 1995, n° 94-11.971 (a penalty clause is not a "fine") is superseded.
2. **Termination after 2 weeks of late payment.** Art. 24 I as rewritten by law n° 2023-668 (Kasbarian): the termination clause is now mandatory and takes effect 6 weeks after a payment order. Art. 4 g) limits automatic termination to its listed grounds. Art. 24 V: the judge can grant payment delays only if the tenant has resumed paying the current rent. For other breaches, the furnished-lease tool is a non-renewal notice for "motif légitime et sérieux" under art. 25-8 I.
3. **Visits with the landlord's own keys.** Cass. 3e civ., 25 Feb 2004, n° 02-18.081: a landlord entering without consent infringes the tenant's private life. Art. 226-4 of the Penal Code (now 3 years and €45,000). Cass. crim., 9 Nov 1994, n° 94-81.505: an owner who changed the locks was convicted of violation de domicile. Also art. 6 b), 4 a) and 7 e) of the 1989 law.
4. **Insurance with the landlord's insurer.** Art. 4 b) bans imposing an insurer. Art. 7 g) lets the landlord take out insurance on the tenant's behalf one month after a formal notice, and that notice counts as giving up the insurance termination clause.
5. **Hosting guests and pets.** Art. 4 n) together with Cass. 3e civ., 6 Mar 1996, n° 93-11.113 (Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights). For pets, art. 10 of law n° 70-598.
6. **Automatic 5% yearly increase.** Art. 25-9 makes art. 17-1 I and III apply to furnished leases: increases capped at the rent index (IRL), and frozen for F/G energy ratings. Art. 17-2 applies at renewal, and ANIL confirms this for furnished leases.

**A**
- Every core conclusion is correct: the 2-month deposit, the flat charges, the €100 fines being void, 6 weeks after a payment order, pets, insurer choice and the IRL cap.
- It misapplies authorities I checked:
  - Cass. 3e civ. 14 Jan 2016, n° 14-24.681 is a commercial-lease ruling on an indexation clause that only works upward. A uses it for a fixed 5% residential increase.
  - Cass. 3e civ. 10 Mar 2010, n° 09-10.412 actually upheld a clause banning lending the flat to a third party, so it does not support the point A cites it for.
  - n° 92-15.129 and n° 95-16.721 are rulings under the old 1948 rent law on sub-letting, so they are only loosely relevant.
- It cites the wrong articles: the F/G rent freeze is put under art. 6 (it is art. 17-1 III via 25-9), and default interest under art. 24 (it is art. 1231-6 of the Civil Code).
- It overstates the criminal risk, saying entry without consent "caractérise le délit"; art. 226-4 requires "manœuvres, menaces, voies de fait ou contrainte".
- Weak strategy:
  - No use of the art. 7 g) route to get the tenant insured with Assur'Logis.
  - The smoking ban is dropped as if clearly unlawful, which is contested.
  - It does not use the non-renewal notice for tenant breaches.
  - It does not say the payment order can be served immediately.
  - It lets the tenant choose how to pay.
- Many trial-court citations are generic and unverified.

**B**
- The statutory analysis is precise and current: the 2023 Kasbarian law (mandatory clause, 6 weeks, judge's delays conditional on paying current rent), art. 226-4 at 3 years/€45,000 (verified), the art. 10 exception for holiday lets (verified), Cass. 93-11.113 (verified), and the 2-month cap under art. 25-6.
- Very good translation of each objective:
  - Payment order "dès le lendemain" of the missed due date.
  - Assur'Logis proposed, plus insurance on the tenant's behalf with the trade-off flagged.
  - Smoking ban kept, with a fallback making the tenant pay for smoke damage.
  - Lawful cap of 4 habitual occupants, plus a sub-letting ban.
  - Furniture list tied to decree 2015-981 to avoid the lease being treated as unfurnished.
  - Tips on rent-guarantee insurance (GLI), surety and the free Visale guarantee.
- Error: it states that a landlord who is a private individual or family company must refer the case to the local eviction-prevention commission (CCAPEX) 2 months before suing. That is the reverse of art. 24 II, where the 2-month rule applies to companies other than family companies. Following it would needlessly delay eviction.
- It presents art. 25-8 I (proposing new terms at renewal) as the only lawful way to raise rent. It ignores art. 17-2, which allows a renewal increase only if the rent is clearly undervalued, notified 6 months before the end. It also cites art. 17-1 II for works, which does not apply to furnished leases.
- Case law is thin: one Cour de cassation decision.
- It offers court termination for breaches but not the non-renewal notice for tenant breaches.

**C**
- The Cour de cassation decisions I checked are accurate and on point: n° 02-18.081, n° 94-81.505, n° 22-19.422 (an exit inventory drawn up by the landlord alone does not prove damage) and n° 94-11.971. C correctly explains why the 1995 ruling is outdated.
- The statutory mechanics are exact and current:
  - Art. 25-9 applying art. 17-1 I and III, and art. 17-2 at renewal (confirmed by ANIL).
  - Art. 7 g): the formal notice counts as giving up the insurance termination clause, and the contract's termination clause carves this out.
  - The CCAPEX rule for private landlords stated correctly.
  - The "manœuvres" requirement of art. 226-4 handled carefully.
  - The 10% late-deposit surcharge, neutralised by requiring the tenant's new address.
- Best tool for the client's wish to terminate for breaches: non-renewal notice for "inexécution des obligations" under art. 25-8 I, plus court termination.
- Two visits a year plus visits for a legitimate reason. Assur'Logis reached through insurance on the tenant's behalf.
- Weaknesses:
  - The contract says the payment order may be served "dès 15 jours" of late payment, which may limit the landlord compared with the law.
  - It drops the 4-person cap instead of offering a lawful version.
  - It does not cite Cass. 93-11.113.
  - It leaves "acte d'huissier" in the contract.
  - Several court of appeal rulings are unverified.

| Doc | Sources | Law in force | Strategy | Correct conclusion | Arguments | Total /25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 2 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 16 |
| B | 3 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 19 |
| C | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 23 |

**Winner: C.** C reaches the right answer on every objective and was accurate on every authority I could check. It anticipates the other side's arguments: the superseded 1995 ruling, the "manœuvres" element of violation de domicile, the risk of a landlord-only exit inventory, and the renewal increase under art. 17-2. B is strategically close and very practical, but it reverses the CCAPEX rule, overstates the renewal rent lever and has thin case law. A is correct on outcomes but misuses several authorities and cites the wrong articles, and its drafting serves the landlord's objectives less well.