**Blind judgment: pret-j1 (France, private loan of €40,000, assignation served October 2026)**

The Alpaca Law tools did not work in this session ("No claude.ai OAuth token available"), and the Chrome extension was not connected. I therefore checked everything on the web:
- Cour de cassation decisions: full texts on Juricaf.
- Code articles: the codes.droit.org consolidation dated 10 Oct 2026.
- Procedure decree and usury threshold: bar and professional publications.

None of the court of appeal (CA) and tribunal judiciaire (TJ) decisions cited by A or C could be found on the web. They are marked unverified, not non-existent.

**Strongest authorities on the central issues**
- **Handwritten mention:** art. 1376 C. civ. is a rule of proof. Civ. 1re 27 Feb 2013, n° 11-22.640 holds it applies to a loan between individuals, because such a loan is unilateral. An act without the mention is a commencement de preuve, completed by outside evidence: Civ. 1re 4 Feb 1992, n° 90-15.948; Civ. 1re 1 Feb 2005, n° 02-13.329.
- **Charles Moreau:** a commencement de preuve must come from the person it is used against (Civ. 1re 14 Oct 2015, n° 14-24.068). All the emails come from Romain only.
- **Usury, when it applies:**
  - L.314-6 C. conso covers "tout prêt conventionnel".
  - L.314-9 excludes borrowers acting for their professional needs.
  - The threshold for loans over €6,000 in Q2 2025 was 8.63%, so 12% is above it.
  - L.341-50 makes usury a crime: 2 years and €300,000.
- **Usury, sanction:** L.341-48: only the excess is set off, first against interest then due, then against capital. Com. 11 Oct 2011, n° 10-14.359 and n° 10-17.522: the sanction is not nullity of the interest clause. Civ. 1re 12 Oct 2004, n° 01-13.656 applies this to a private loan.
- **Loan with no term:** art. 1900. The judge must fix a term later than the claim: Civ. 1re 19 Jan 1983, n° 81-15.105; Com. 26 Jan 2010, n° 08-12.591. A claim cannot be rejected just because there is no term: Civ. 1re 29 Jun 1982, n° 81-13.725.
- **Two borrowers:** art. 1310 and 1309 C. civ. Solidarity is not presumed in civil matters, so without a clause the debt splits into €20,000 each.
- **Procedure:**
  - Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon (art. 42 al. 2 CPC), lawyer compulsory (art. 760).
  - Orientation hearing date in the writ (art. 751, 754); 15 days to appoint a lawyer (art. 763).
  - Décret n° 2026-683 of 27 Jul 2026, in force 1 Oct 2026, adds a new required warning in art. 56 4° that refers to new art. 472 al. 3.

**A**
- **Verified correct:** Com. 11 Oct 2011, n° 10-14.359. The core conclusion is also right: art. 1376 does not void the loan, and usury does not wipe out the capital.
- **Misused:** Com. 10 May 2011, n° 10-18.749 is cited for art. 1900. The decision actually holds that art. 1900 does not apply to a shareholder's current account.
- **Misstated:** A says the sanction of usury is "substitution du taux légal". In its subsidiary claim it concedes imputation on legal-rate interest. That is not the text of L.341-48 and it hurts the client.
- **Wrong or misnumbered articles:** art. 1364 for commencement de preuve (should be 1362), art. 1229 for nullity restitutions, art. 753 CPC for the 15-day delay. Its source table also lists L.313-5-2 CMF, which is not the consumer-loan provision.
- **Outdated writ model:** it summons the defendants to appear within 15 days, with no hearing date, no orientation hearing, no plaintiff's birth date, and no new art. 56 4° warning. As drafted, the writ is open to a nullity challenge.
- **Term asked at the writ's date:** this goes against Com. 26 Jan 2010, which requires a term later than the claim.
- **Gaps:**
  - No professional-purpose exclusion (L.314-9) and no criminal-risk analysis.
  - Unpaid interest is given up without explanation.
  - Romain's emails are treated as admissions by "les défendeurs", ignoring Charles's separate position.
  - Its 12 CA/TJ decisions are unverified, including TJ Privas, 24 Sep 2026 (a property-seizure chamber) cited on when the loan's term starts.

**B**
- **Procedure fully current:** it applies décret 2026-683 and puts in the exact new art. 56 4° / art. 472 al. 3 warning, which I verified. It also correctly covers art. 750-1 (no compulsory amicable step above €5,000), postulation within the Lyon court of appeal, and the art. 754 deadlines. Minor slip: art. 755 instead of 763.
- **Verified correct:**
  - Civ. 1re 7 Mar 2006, n° 02-20.374 and Civ. 1re 28 Mar 2000, n° 97-21.422 (real vs consensual loan).
  - Civ. 1re 1 Feb 2005, n° 02-13.329 (exactly on point).
  - Civ. 3e 2 May 2012, n° 11-18.927 (commodat, used as an analogy and labelled as such).
  - The 8.63% threshold.
- **Slightly misdescribed:** Civ. 1re 22 Jan 2020, n° 18-24.295. It actually holds that the presumption of cause applies even without the mention.
- **Misdated and misdescribed:** "Civ. 1re 25 Mar 1982, n° 81-11.193" is really 12 May 1982, and it is the case on a missing TEG leading to the legal rate. It does not support "the contract is maintained". B flagged it "à vérifier" and kept it out of the writ.
- **Usury handled well:** it argues the professional exclusion while flagging its weakness, and applies L.341-48 literally (€1,123.33 set off against capital, leaving €38,876.67). It cites L.313-5-1 CMF instead of L.314-9, which is not quite the right article but the substance is right.
- **Counter-arguments answered:** it rebuts a possible "rente perpétuelle" reading (art. 1909/1913), offers resolution as a fallback, opposes payment delays, and explains why two equal shares of €20,000 is the likely outcome.
- **Weak spots:**
  - It claims 12% interest as the main demand without mentioning the criminal risk of usury (L.341-50).
  - Its case law on art. 1900 is thin.

**C**
- **Richest and most accurate case law.** About 17 Cour de cassation decisions checked, all accurate:
  - Civ. 1re 7 Mar 2006, 19 Jun 2008 and 10 Oct 2012 (real loan; handing over money does not prove a duty to repay).
  - Civ. 1re 4 Feb 1992, 13 Oct 1992, 20 Oct 1992 and 27 Feb 2013 (the art. 1326/1376 line).
  - Civ. 1re 14 Oct 2015 (applied to Charles).
  - The art. 1900 line: Civ. 1re 19 Jan 1983, Com. 26 Jan 2010, Civ. 1re 29 Jun 1982.
  - Civ. 1re 22 Jun 2017 (forfeiture of the term needs a formal demand).
  - Civ. 1re 29 Jun 2004 and 20 Apr 2022, both on professional purpose; the 2022 case is cited honestly against its own position.
  - Com. 11 Oct 2011 (both decisions) and Civ. 1re 12 Oct 2004.
- **Statutes accurate:** L.314-9 quoted word for word, L.341-48, L.341-48-1 (the post-2019 proportionate sanction for a missing TEG), L.341-50, art. 763, 1174 al. 2, 1352-6/7, L.313-2 CMF.
- **Best strategy of the three:**
  - Flags the criminal usury risk and gives the client a prudent option (claim at 8.63%).
  - Asks the judge to fix the term at the date of judgment, in line with the case law.
  - Demands that the borrowers produce documents on how the funds were used.
  - Recommends a precautionary seizure (saisie conservatoire).
  - For Charles, offers fallbacks: his personal appearance (art. 1362 al. 2) and unjust enrichment.
  - Explains why it does not ask for resolution.
- **Outdated warning:** its art. 56 4° warning lacks the new reference to art. 472 al. 3 and restates the superseded rule (the judge grants only what is well founded). The omission is curable and nullity requires proof of harm.
- **Minor points:**
  - It sets the usury excess off against later unpaid interest rather than interest "alors échus"; the money difference is negligible.
  - "Avocat inscrit au barreau de Lyon" is narrower than the Lyon court of appeal area.
  - Its CA decisions are unverified.

| Doc | Sources | Law in force | Strategy | Conclusion | Arguments | Total /25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 11 |
| B | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 21 |
| C | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 24 |

**Winner: C.** C supports every central point with the leading Cour de cassation authorities, all verified and used accurately, and B and C reach the same correct legal answer. C protects the client better: it warns about the criminal usury risk, deals with the weak proof against Charles, demands documents on how the funds were used, and proposes a precautionary seizure. B is a close second and the only one fully current on décret 2026-683, but its case law is thin and partly misdescribed. A has the right core conclusions but uses an outdated writ model, misstates the sanction of usury, and misuses several authorities.