**Blind judgment: pret-j2 (jurisdiction fr, rubric v3). B wins with 23/25, A has 21/25, C has 11/25.**

**How I verified.** The Alpaca Law tools failed with "No claude.ai OAuth token available". Légifrance blocked automated access (Cloudflare 403) and the Chrome extension was not connected, so statute texts were checked through secondary sources (Lexbase, Lefebvre-Dalloz, CNB and bar commentaries). Every Cour de cassation decision and the appellate decisions listed below were checked one by one on Judilibre (courdecassation.fr): court, date, number and what the decision actually holds.

**Strongest authorities on the central issues**
1. **Missing handwritten mention (art. 1376) is a rule of proof, not of validity.** The irregular deed still counts as "commencement de preuve par écrit" (beginning of written proof):
   - Civ. 1re, 4 févr. 1992, n° 90-15.948: a private loan is a unilateral contract, so the old art. 1326 applies, and the irregular deed counts as beginning of written proof.
   - Civ. 1re, 13 oct. 1992, n° 90-10.729: the beginning of proof was completed by a later letter from the borrower.
   - Civ. 1re, 1er févr. 2005, n° 02-13.329.
   - Civ. 1re, 27 févr. 2013, n° 11-22.640: a loan is not synallagmatic, so the old art. 1326 applies.
   - Art. 1174 al. 2: the mention can be made electronically.
   - Civ. 1re, 14 oct. 2015, n° 14-24.068: the beginning of written proof must come from the person it is used against. This matters for Charles Moreau, who wrote none of the emails.
2. **A loan by a private person is formed by handing over the money:** Civ. 1re, 7 mars 2006, n° 02-20.374 and Civ. 1re, 19 juin 2008, n° 06-19.056.
3. **Usury.**
   - Arts. L. 314-6 and L. 314-9 C. consom., with L. 313-5-1 CMF: for natural persons borrowing for their business, only overdrafts are subject to usury.
   - The threshold for loans over €6,000 was **8.63 %** for 1 April to 30 June 2025 (confirmed).
   - Sanction under L. 341-48: only the excess paid is set off, first against interest already due, then against capital. Com. 11 oct. 2011, n° 10-14.359 (published) and n° 10-17.522.
   - Civ. 1re, 12 oct. 2004, n° 01-13.656: usury rules applied to a private loan, and the capital can be reduced by this set-off.
   - CA Papeete, 11 sept. 2025, RG 24/00242 goes against the lender: usury applied where the business purpose was not stated in the deed.
4. **Loan with no repayment date (art. 1900):** Civ. 1re, 19 janv. 1983, n° 81-15.105 and Com. 26 janv. 2010, n° 08-12.591. The judge sets the repayment date, and it must fall after the claim is filed. Civ. 1re, 29 juin 1982, n° 81-13.725: the judge cannot reject the claim just because no date was set.
5. **Two borrowers:** arts. 1309 and 1310 C. civ. Joint and several liability is never presumed, so by default the debt splits into halves of €20,000.
6. **Procedure:**
   - Tribunal judiciaire de Lyon (art. 42 al. 2 CPC), lawyer mandatory (art. 760), local lawyer needed for filing.
   - **Décret n° 2026-683 du 27 juillet 2026 ("Magicobus III")** applies to cases started from 1 Oct 2026. It rewrites the default warning required in the summons by art. 56 4° CPC, which must now refer to the new third paragraph of art. 472 (fast-track judgment against a defendant served in person who does not appear).

**A**
- Correct core analysis:
  - Art. 1376 is a rule of proof.
  - Usury only leads to the set-off.
  - The capital is owed even if the contract were void.
  - It deals separately with Charles Moreau.
  - It anticipates a "rente perpétuelle" argument (arts. 1909/1913), a "pay when we can" reading (art. 1901) and the missing effective annual rate (TEG).
- **Only document that applies the décret 2026-683** (verified): new art. 56 4° wording, art. 472 al. 3, instruction to serve in person.
- Usury handled well:
  - Business-loan exclusion under L. 313-5-1 CMF, with its weakness acknowledged.
  - 8.63 % threshold correct.
  - Excess correctly set off against capital: €38,876.67.
- Source errors and gaps:
  - "Civ. 1re, 25 mars 1982, n° 81-11.193" is misattributed: that number is Civ. 1re, **12 mai 1982**, and it concerns a missing TEG (legal rate substituted), not usury.
  - On the missing repayment date it relies on loan-for-use (commodat) cases: Civ. 3e, 2 mai 2012, n° 11-18.927, and Civ. 1re, 14 mai 2025, n° 23-22.953. Both are real but not on point, and it omits the art. 1900 line of cases.
  - Its "the sum is already due" theory sits awkwardly with that case law, but the subsidiary claim to end the contract for breach covers it.
  - The decisions it cites on art. 1376 (02-13.329, 18-24.295) and on loans as contracts formed by delivery (02-20.374, 97-21.422) are accurate.
- It does not warn the client about criminal usury risk when claiming 12 %.

**B**
- **Best sources, used accurately:**
  - All Cour de cassation decisions verified as real and correctly described: the 1992 trio, 11-22.640, 14-24.068, the art. 1900 line (81-15.105, 08-12.591, 81-13.725), the 2011 usury pair and 01-13.656, 02-19.445, 20-19.043, 16-18.418.
  - It cites adverse authority honestly (CA Papeete 2025, Civ. 1re 2022).
  - Small slip: 06-19.056 actually puts the burden on a borrower who signed an acknowledgment of debt.
- Strategy closest to a specialist's:
  - Asks the judge to set the repayment date at the date of judgment, which matches the Cour de cassation rule.
  - Formal demand that the borrowers disclose documents on how the funds were used (to prove business purpose).
  - Freezing order on the borrowers' accounts.
  - Warns the client of criminal usury exposure (L. 341-50) and gives a cautious alternative.
  - Flags checking Charles's signature as a blocking point.
  - Correct on the new missing-TEG sanction (L. 341-48-1).
- **Out-of-date law in the summons itself:** it uses the pre-1 Oct 2026 art. 56 4° warning and describes art. 472 the old way. This is a formal defect in a summons served now; it is fixable, and nullity requires proof of harm.
- Minor errors:
  - In the usury scenario it sets the excess off against interest falling due later. Under L. 341-48 it should go to capital; the money difference is small.
  - It says defendants need a lawyer "au barreau de Lyon"; any lawyer from the Lyon Court of Appeal area can act.

**C**
- The core is correct (art. 1376 is a rule of proof; capital owed even if void). Several of its appellate decisions are real and relevant: CA Grenoble 26 sept. 2023, RG 22/01232; CA Rouen 30 nov. 2023, RG 23/00062.
- Misused authorities:
  - Com. 10 mai 2011, n° 10-18.749 actually holds that art. 1900 does **not** apply to shareholder current accounts.
  - It cites Com. 11 oct. 2011 correctly but then calls the usury sanction a "substitution du taux légal", which is wrong.
  - Art. 1364 is given for beginning of written proof (that is art. 1362).
  - Art. 753 CPC is given for the deadline to appoint a lawyer.
  - TJ Privas (property seizures), 24 sept. 2026 is real but off-point.
- Weak strategy:
  - It **drops the contractual interest entirely**: no claim for the €2,400 arrears or future interest, only legal-rate interest.
  - It asks to set the repayment date at the date of the summons, contrary to the 1983 and 2010 Cour de cassation decisions.
  - No analysis of whether usury applies at all (business exclusion, threshold).
  - Charles Moreau's separate proof problem is ignored, and it speaks of "aveu des emprunteurs" when only Romain wrote.
- The summons uses the pre-2020 format: no hearing date or place, no plaintiff birth details, old default warning. It risks being annulled.

| Doc | Sources | Law in force | Strategy | Right conclusion | Arguments | Total /25 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 | **21** |
| B | 5 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 | **23** |
| C | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | **11** |

**Winner: B.** B grounds every central issue in the strongest Cour de cassation authority and uses it accurately, including adverse decisions on the business-loan question and on Charles Moreau's position. A is equally sound on the conclusion and is the only one that applied the décret n° 2026-683 summons rules. But A is thinner on the repayment-date and usury case law, contains one misattributed decision, and misses the criminal usury risk. C reaches the right core answer but drops the client's interest claim, misstates the usury sanction and uses a summons format that risks being annulled.