Facts
[A.] and [B.] signed on October 4, 2014 an agreement for the transfer by [A.] to [B.] of the client portfolio acquired as part of its business with company C. Sàrl. It was planned that [B.] would pay an amount of 600,000 francs, of which 200,000 francs at the latest by January 31, 2015 and the balance by June 20, 2016 at the latest.
On March 15, 2017, [A.] requested the Debt Collection Office of the District of Aigle to notify [B.] of a payment order for the sum of 400,000 francs, plus interest. [B.] filed a total opposition.
On August 10, 2017, the Justice of the Peace of the District of Aigle ordered the provisional lifting of the opposition up to 400,000 francs. Seized of an appeal, the Cantonal Court of the Canton of Vaud maintained the opposition filed by B.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal dismissed A.'s appeal. The Debt Collection and Bankruptcy Court considered that the pursuing creditor, [A.], had not sufficiently established proof of the performance of its contractual obligation, namely the transfer of the client portfolio. Therefore, the synallagmatic contract could not be considered as a recognition of debt within the meaning of Art. 82 para. 1 DEBA, and the provisional lifting had to be refused.
The Federal Tribunal approved this decision. It ruled that when the debtor being pursued alleges…