Definition
In French law, a loan. A contract by which one party (the lender) delivers an article or sum of money to another party (the borrower) for use, on the condition that the borrower will return either the same article or an equivalent of the same species and quality after use.
The term encompasses two principal forms:
1. Prêt à usage (also called commodat): A loan of a specific article for use, where the borrower is obligated to return the identical thing lent — not a substitute or equivalent. Because ownership does not transfer, the lender bears the risk of loss.
2. Prêt à intérêt: A loan of money, commodities, or other movable property at interest, where the borrower returns an equivalent of the same species and quality rather than the exact item delivered. Ownership passes to the borrower, who bears the risk of loss and owes interest on the obligation.
Common Confusion
Prêt à usage and prêt à intérêt follow different legal logics. In prêt à usage, the lender retains ownership and the borrower must return the specific thing — making it closer to bailment in common law. In prêt à intérêt, ownership transfers to the borrower, who returns an equivalent and pays interest — making it closer to a common law loan of money. Researchers conflating the two will misread the nature of the obligation, the allocation of risk, and the remedies available under the source texts.
Recognized Forms
/SUBTYPES
Prêt à usage (commodat): Gratuitous loan for use; specific article returned; no interest; lender retains ownership.
Prêt à intérêt: Loan of money or fungible goods at interest; equivalent returned; ownership transfers to borrower.
Prêt de consommation (mutuum): Loan of consumable goods where an equivalent quantity and quality is returned; overlaps conceptually with prêt à intérêt in French civilian doctrine.
Why It Matters in Research
Pret appears in sources touching French civil law, Louisiana law, and the law of Spanish and French colonial territories. Researchers working in Louisiana legal history will encounter the term in early civil codes and notarial records where the civilian taxonomy of loan contracts governs rather than common law categories. The civilian distinction between loans for use (where ownership stays with the lender) and loans for consumption or at interest (where ownership passes) has direct consequences for how courts analyzed risk of loss, usury questions, and creditor remedies.
The term rarely appears in Anglo-American common law sources. When it does appear, it typically signals a French or civilian source being quoted or analyzed. Researchers using Black's 2nd edition should be alert to the truncated entry — the source text cuts off mid-sentence on prêt à intérêt, omitting the full civilian treatment of that subtype. Rapalje & Lawrence cross-references prêt à usage back to the main pret entry without independent elaboration, offering no additional doctrinal content.
Researchers exploring the Louisiana Civil Code, the Digest of 1808, or pre-statehood Louisiana legal materials will find pret used in notarial instruments and early reported decisions as a live term of art rather than a historical curiosity.
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's 2nd edition provides a functional but incomplete entry. The definition tracks Duverger's French legal lexicography closely and correctly distinguishes the two principal forms, but the entry is truncated before completing the treatment of prêt à intérêt. Rapalje & Lawrence add nothing substantive, directing the reader back to the same entry without independent analysis.
Neither source engages the civilian theoretical underpinnings — particularly the significance of whether ownership transfers, which is the operative distinction driving the legal consequences. Researchers needing full doctrinal treatment should consult Louisiana civil law commentators and the Louisiana Civil Code directly rather than relying on these dictionary entries alone.
Jurisdictional Note
Pret as a term of art is operative primarily in Louisiana, which inherited French and Spanish civil law traditions and codified civilian loan categories in its Civil Code. Common law jurisdictions do not use the term, though the underlying concepts map imperfectly onto bailment, mutuum, and loan for use in common law doctrine.