French acknowledgment of debt: do the amounts agree?
Read a French acknowledgment of debt between individuals alongside the loan facts and applicable evidence rules. Identify the parties, date, amounts in figures and words and the debtor’s signature. A difference between amounts is a point to clarify, not an automatic verdict about the debt. Loan tax reporting is a separate procedure with its own conditions to check; this worksheet neither certifies the document nor pursues collection.
Source D1Source D2Julie by AlphaDeep is an AI legal assistant for French law, built for individuals and professionals, with sourced answers, document and case-file analysis, assisted drafting and team sharing. Compare AI legal assistants for French law.
Do the two amounts I read match?
The comparison uses the numbers you enter. You supply the numeric value of the amount written in words: there is no document recognition or automatic word-to-number conversion.
« […] somme indiquée en chiffres : 1200 € ; mention en lettres : mille euros […] »
Fictional example · you can change the fields
Your entries stay on this page until you choose to continue.
Your preparation
A reported discrepancy to clarify
- In numerals: €1,200.00. Your numeric reading of the words: €1,000.00. Absolute difference: €200.00.
- Signature: Check the complete document.
- This calculation does not verify the written words and decides neither evidential effect nor the legally owed amount.
Which document and loan are being reviewed?
Distinguish a private writing, notarial deed and other records. This sheet prepares pre-signature reading, not collection. Source D1
Which details should I locate in the writing?
Identify parties, date, amount and the debtor’s signature using the official guide and the loan facts. Source D1Source D2
Do the amounts in figures and words agree?
Compare both entries. The tool reports agreement or a stated discrepancy; it does not determine legal consequences. Source D1Source D2
What if an amount is missing or unreadable?
Keep that uncertainty in the worksheet and request clarification. Do not invent a value from context.
| Feature | Record or fact to connect | Remaining question |
|---|---|---|
| Parties and date | Identities and loan timeline | Who undertakes what, and when? |
| Amount | Numerals, words and transferred funds | Do the wording and payment match? |
| Signature | Complete document and original | Presence, author and signing circumstances? |
| Repayment | Agreed due date and correspondence | What does the document provide? |
| Tax reporting | Loan-reporting conditions | Is a separate procedure required? |
What happens in the other cases?
- Matching amounts
- Reported agreement proves neither payment, authenticity, validity nor the outstanding debt.
- Difference
- Clarify the document before signing. Do not unilaterally change a signed document or infer the legally enforceable amount here.
- Illegible or missing wording
- Preserve uncertainty and request clarification. The calculation does not replace missing information with zero.
- Tax reporting
- Loan reporting is separate from the civil document. Check its conditions and the applicable form.
Is an evidence rule the same as a validity rule?
They are separate questions. A writing requirement for proof does not automatically decide the validity of loans below a threshold. Source D1
Does tax reporting replace the acknowledgment?
No. Reporting a loan agreement and preparing civil evidence serve different procedures; check their conditions separately. Source D1Source D3Source D4
Which records should be linked to the document?
Organize payment references, stated repayment arrangements and relevant correspondence without inferring a debt from one isolated record.
What can a Julie demonstration show?
In the fictional test run on 11 September 2026 below, Julie identified a €200 discrepancy and missing details. The actual response excerpt appears with its input file and a critical review of its limitations.
What did Julie identify in this fictional debt excerpt?
We attached the fictional excerpt in the published Julie application and asked it to distinguish amounts, missing details and evidence rules. One case was run. Julie’s actual reading of the file is separate from this page’s numerical comparator, which uses your reported values.
Il existe donc une discordance de 200 € entre les deux mentions.
L’extrait ne permet pas d’établir une dette réelle ni un montant exigible.English explanation: Julie identified a €200 discrepancy and said that the excerpt establishes neither a real debt nor an enforceable amount.
Julie read €1,200 in numerals and “mille euros” in words, identified the €200 difference and listed six missing or unestablished details.
| Check | Observation | Limitation |
|---|---|---|
| Two amounts | €1,200 and €1,000 identified; €200 difference | A reading observation, not an enforceable amount |
| Missing details | Parties, date, due date, signature and payment listed | The excerpt is not a complete instrument |
| Evidence rule | Conditions and figures/words discrepancy discussed | “Amount proved” must remain conditional |
View the fictional excerpt used in this test
DÉMONSTRATION JULIE — EXTRAIT ENTIÈREMENT FICTIF ET INCOMPLET
Ce document n’est pas un modèle destiné à la signature. Il ne décrit aucune dette réelle.
Intitulé : reconnaissance de dette entre particuliers — exemple de lecture.
Prêteur : identité volontairement non renseignée.
Débiteur : identité volontairement non renseignée.
Date de l’écrit : non renseignée.
Somme indiquée en chiffres : 1 200 euros.
Somme indiquée en lettres : mille euros.
Échéance de remboursement : non renseignée.
Signature du débiteur : absente de cet extrait.
Justificatif de versement : non joint.
Download the fictional French excerpt