RESULTS · THE PROOF IN ACTION
Our results: judgments and settlements obtained
Law that rises to your ambitions.
A glimpse of how we defend your rights and interests — through settlement as well as in court, in Lyon, Paris and beyond. Anonymised public decisions and signed agreements: the concrete measure of our commitment.
Your first consultation, refunded*
+33 9 83 68 80 80 (standard rate)
* The first consultation costs a flat €69 excl. VAT (€82.80 incl. VAT). If you then entrust your case to MUSE, it is automatically credited against your first invoice. For a one-off consultation, you receive clear oral advice and/or a written summary, depending on how we meet.
Book an appointmentAmicable dispute resolution
Settling disputes without trial
0%
of disputes handled by #MUSE AVOCATS were resolved amicably*
*Share of disputes resolved amicably in commercial and real-estate matters, across all contentious cases concluded (by settlement or judgment) between 1 January and 31 December 2024.
“Fast and well”: that is the watchword of the MUSE collective. A dispute weighs on you — registered letters, bailiffs' reports, constant tension. Our first duty is to end it, fast and well.
Your lawyer pins down each issue and maps out your rights, the realistic gains and the risks. Then, through solid preparation and coordination with court officers, they steer the amicable route — an alternative to litigation — towards a balanced outcome, in as little time as possible.
…And free your mind.
Effective
Your settlement carries the force of a judgment
When an agreement takes shape, your lawyer seals it without delay: they draft the settlement deed, signed electronically through DocuSign®, wherever the parties are. Since French law no. 2021-1729 of 22 December 2021, an agreement countersigned by both parties' lawyers carries the enforceable force of a judgment: what you negotiate acquires the same authority as a court ruling — without the uncertainty or the length of a trial.
A lawyer's expertise, augmented by AI
None of these results happen by chance. Every case is prepared with the support of an augmented-intelligence system — trained on fifteen years of our own case law, including the decisions below, and on the structured reasoning of a French judge, modelled on the official drafting guides of the National School for the Judiciary and the Cour de cassation. We anticipate how the court will analyse the case, and build the safest strategy from the start. AI sheds light; the lawyer leads — always within the bounds of professional secrecy.
Litigation · Case law
A selection of decisions we obtained
Banking law
Commercial law
Real estate
Family & wealth
Payment fraud: the burden of proof falls on the bank
Lyon Court of Appeal (Cour d'appel), 6th ch. — 21 May 2026 · Case no. 24/04021
Victims of a “fake bank adviser” scam were refused any refund. The Court restated that the burden of proving gross negligence lies with the bank; failing such proof, the bank is liable — on top of the interest penalties of Article L.133-18 of the French Monetary and Financial Code.
Unofficial translation. “Proof of the gross negligence referred to in Article L.133-19 […] lies with the bank. […] gross negligence has not been established, and the bank's liability is therefore engaged. The bank is accordingly ordered to refund Mr and Mrs [X] the amount of the fraudulent transactions, namely €7,407.17.”
Crypto-assets: the platform's failure of vigilance engages its liability
Grenoble Court of Appeal (Cour d'appel), com. ch. — 26 June 2025 · Case no. 24/02105
An investor's account was hacked. Overturning the first ruling, the Court held that the crypto-exchange platform — which had itself flagged the connections as abnormal, yet neither reacted nor alerted the user — breached its duty to perform the contract in good faith (Articles 1104 and 1231-1 of the French Civil Code).
Unofficial translation. “Orders [the crypto-asset exchange platform] to pay Mr [X] the sum of €27,950.00 in compensation for his financial loss […].”
Payment fraud: withdrawal capacity confused with payment ceiling
Bourg-en-Bresse Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire), 3rd civ. ch. — 26 January 2024 · Case no. 23/00932
A fake-adviser victim had been refused the refund of a fraudulent payment. The court found that the bank had raised the card's withdrawal capacity — distinct from its payment ceiling — and failed to prove it had authenticated the transaction (Article L.133-23 of the Monetary and Financial Code): it must refund, with increased interest.
Unofficial translation. “[…] it is the card's withdrawal capacity […] that was increased […]. Yet [the client] has a monthly payment ceiling and a withdrawal capacity […], which are therefore distinct. [The bank] shows no increase in the payment ceiling […] and offers no explanation as to how a €1,900.00 payment could go through when it exceeded the monthly ceiling […]. In view of all these elements, [the bank] fails to discharge its burden of proving that it authenticated the transaction […]. Consequently, [the bank] is ordered […] to refund […] €1,900.00 for the unauthorised transfer […].”
Consumer credit: the claim was time-barred
Saint-Étienne Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 25 April 2023 · Case no. 19/001201
The assignee of the debt sued the borrower years after the default. French law required the claim to be brought within two years of the first unremedied payment incident: that period had run out, and the claim was ruled inadmissible.
Unofficial translation. “[…] the first payment incident left unremedied by the debtor dates back to 25 October 2012 […]. The order for payment was served on 20 February 2015, more than two years after that first incident. Consequently, the claim brought by [the assignee] against [Mr X] is time-barred and therefore inadmissible.”
“Technician” fraud: the bank's absolute obligation
Lyon Commercial Court (Tribunal de commerce) — 31 January 2023
Successive fraudulent transfers slipped past the security ceiling before the “batch” run. The court saw this as a technical deficiency, at odds with the bank's obligation to achieve a result.
Unofficial translation. “[…] At the hearing, the Bank admitted that this ceiling mechanism could prove ineffective where successive transfers were made in quick succession, a 'batch' delay being required. This is unquestionably an unjustified technical deficiency, in breach of the Bank's obligation of result […] sanctioned by Article 1231-1 of the Civil Code […]. Consequently, the court orders the Bank to refund […] €54,000.00 for the transfer […] that should have been blocked.”
Payment services: the contractual guarantee protects the merchant
Lyon Commercial Court (Tribunal de commerce) — 1 December 2022
The bank, which guaranteed the insolvency risk on interest-free credit sales, had to bear the amounts left unpaid by insolvent customers.
Unofficial translation. “[…] It is [the Bank's] responsibility to guarantee its operation. […] '[The Bank] covers, as lender, the borrowers' insolvency risk on interest-free credit agreements.' The amounts left unpaid by insolvent customers total €45,514.75. […] these sums are guaranteed.”
Assignment of debts: no proof of title
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 17 March 2022
The assignee produced only a spreadsheet of its own making — not the schedules to the deed of assignment showing that the disputed debt was part of the portfolio sold. Its claim was ruled inadmissible.
Unofficial translation. “[…] [The claimant] does not produce the schedules referred to in the deed of assignment, only an extract […] which appears to be a table drawn up by itself rather than a genuine extract, a notarised certificate or a bailiff's report capable of establishing that the disputed debt belongs to the portfolio assigned. […] Its claim is ruled inadmissible […].”
Recruitment: an intermediary's bad faith and the lost opportunity
Lyon Commercial Court (Tribunal de commerce) — 9 September 2024 · Case no. 2023J00634
The engagement letter — specific as to start date, pay and duration — was unambiguous: the intermediary acted in bad faith and was held liable for the candidate's lost chance of earning that remuneration.
Unofficial translation. “The court observes that the letter sent on 23 November 2022 by [Z] to Mr [X], which specifies the start date, the remuneration and the duration of the assignment, contains no ambiguity. […] The court holds […] that [Z] acted unfairly towards the candidate and is liable for Mr [X]'s loss of opportunity […]. The court orders [Z] to pay €33,040.00 excl. VAT […] in damages […].”
IT services: non-compliance with the specification and no delivery
Paris Commercial Court (Tribunal de commerce) — 9 September 2020
Backed by a bailiff's report, the booking and payment features were missing and no acceptance report was ever signed: the contract was terminated at the provider's fault.
Unofficial translation. “[…] the bailiff's report shows that, besides truncated text and photos on the site, the online booking and payment features do not exist although they are required by the specification […]. Declares the service contract terminated as of right […] through the fault of [Z]; Orders [Z] to pay [X] €5,385.44 in damages.”
Rent control in Lyon: the tenant's claim ruled inadmissible
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 3 July 2025 · Case no. 24/01602
The tenant sought to cap her rent at the prefectoral ceiling and recover the alleged overpayment. But the cumulative steps required by Article 140 of the ELAN Act had not been completed, and the writ was served out of time: her claim was inadmissible.
Unofficial translation. “These requirements must be completed cumulatively before the lease is renewed. Failure to do so renders the claim inadmissible. […] the writ […] was already out of time. Accordingly, [the tenant] is inadmissible in her claim for repayment of overpaid rent and for the setting of her rent.”
Renovation works: contract terminated for abandonment of the site
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 25 January 2022
Contract, formal notice and bailiff's report established the breach: the unilateral termination of the works contract was upheld and the contractor held liable.
Unofficial translation. “[…] the [X] family establishes the non-performance of the masonry works (works contract, formal notice, bailiff's report […]). The unilateral termination of the works contract must therefore be recorded […], [Z]'s contractual liability upheld, and [Z] ordered to pay a provisional sum of €16,427.00, the value of the works left unperformed.”
Co-ownership: works ordered under penalty, and rental losses compensated
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 30 November 2021
The co-owners' association was ordered to stop the water ingress, under a daily penalty, and to compensate the co-owner's loss on a provisional basis.
Unofficial translation. “ORDERS the co-owners' association […] to carry out all works necessary to stop the water ingress […] under a penalty of €50.00 per day of delay […]; ORDERS the co-owners' association […] to pay SCI [X] €3,780.00 excl. VAT on a provisional basis in compensation for the loss suffered […].”
Interim relief: dividing former partners' assets belongs to the family judge alone
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire), interim relief — 4 November 2025 · Case no. 25/00960
Asked in summary proceedings to rule on a debt between former partners, the judge found that the division of their assets fell outside his powers and referred the claimant to the court with full jurisdiction.
Unofficial translation. “[…] the dispute between the parties arises from the acrimonious separation of former partners […], for whom the matter must proceed before the family-affairs judge, who alone has jurisdiction […] over the division of their assets. It is accordingly held that there is no ground for interim relief, and [Mr Y] is referred to the proper court.”
After the break-up: recovering debts paid on a former partner's behalf
Lyon Civil Court (Tribunal judiciaire) — 24 June 2025 · Case no. 23/05236
Having paid off the enforcement officer under the couple's joint loan, our client obtained an order that her former partner repay half of the sums paid — the court dismissing, however, the claim relating to the joint account.
Unofficial translation. “[Ms X] proves that she paid the enforcement officer €12,968.76 […]. She is therefore entitled to recover half of that sum from [Mr Y]. [Mr Y] is accordingly ordered to pay [Ms X] […] €6,484.38.”
A dispute to untangle?
Our lawyers reply promptly — and in English.
+33 9 83 68 80 80