, IRM1501 October/November PORTFOLIO (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 14 October 2025 ; 100%
correct solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1
Facts
The case of Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers
(Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) arose from a lease agreement concluded
between Everfresh and Shoprite for retail premises. The lease included a
renewal clause which allowed Everfresh to renew the lease by giving
notice in writing. The clause also provided that the parties would
negotiate the new rental and other terms of the renewed lease “in good
faith.” Before the lease expired, Everfresh gave proper notice of its
intention to renew. Shoprite refused to renew and instead applied to
evict Everfresh, arguing that the renewal clause was legally
unenforceable. According to Shoprite, the clause lacked certainty
because it did not set out the rental or essential terms of the renewal and
therefore amounted to nothing more than an “agreement to agree.”
Everfresh resisted the eviction, contending that Shoprite was obliged to
negotiate in good faith and that such a duty should be legally recognised.
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether a contractual clause that obliges
parties to negotiate in good faith is enforceable in South African contract
law. This further raised the constitutional question of whether the
common law of contract should be developed, in line with
transformative constitutionalism, to give effect to values such as
fairness, reasonableness, and good faith in private contractual
relationships.
Reasons for the Decision (Ratio Decidendi)
The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Constitution requires all
areas of law, including contract law, to be interpreted and applied in
accordance with constitutional values. Although South African common
ANSWERS) Semester 2 2025 - DUE 14 October 2025 ; 100%
correct solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1
Facts
The case of Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers
(Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) arose from a lease agreement concluded
between Everfresh and Shoprite for retail premises. The lease included a
renewal clause which allowed Everfresh to renew the lease by giving
notice in writing. The clause also provided that the parties would
negotiate the new rental and other terms of the renewed lease “in good
faith.” Before the lease expired, Everfresh gave proper notice of its
intention to renew. Shoprite refused to renew and instead applied to
evict Everfresh, arguing that the renewal clause was legally
unenforceable. According to Shoprite, the clause lacked certainty
because it did not set out the rental or essential terms of the renewal and
therefore amounted to nothing more than an “agreement to agree.”
Everfresh resisted the eviction, contending that Shoprite was obliged to
negotiate in good faith and that such a duty should be legally recognised.
Legal Question
The main legal question was whether a contractual clause that obliges
parties to negotiate in good faith is enforceable in South African contract
law. This further raised the constitutional question of whether the
common law of contract should be developed, in line with
transformative constitutionalism, to give effect to values such as
fairness, reasonableness, and good faith in private contractual
relationships.
Reasons for the Decision (Ratio Decidendi)
The Constitutional Court emphasised that the Constitution requires all
areas of law, including contract law, to be interpreted and applied in
accordance with constitutional values. Although South African common
