IRM1501
Portfolio Exam (Semester 2)
DUE 7 October 2025
QUESTION ONE
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC)
is an example of a case where the Constitutional Court applied the principles of
transformative constitutionalism.
Discuss this case in the prescribed format (facts, legal question, reasons for the
decision or ratio decidendi and the court’s findings).
ANSWER:
Facts:
• Everfresh Market Virginia rented premises from Shoprite Checkers in terms of a
written lease agreement.
• The lease contained a clause that gave Everfresh the option to renew the lease if
the parties agreed on the rental amount for the new term.
• When the lease expired, Everfresh sought to exercise the renewal clause, but
Shoprite refused to negotiate a new rental amount.
• Everfresh argued that Shoprite was obliged to negotiate in good faith.
• The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that South African contract law did
not generally enforce a duty to negotiate.
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
, Legal Question:
The central legal question was whether the common law of contract should be
developed, in line with constitutional values, to enforce a duty to negotiate in good faith
under a lease renewal clause.
Ratio / Reasons:
The Constitutional Court reasoned that section 39(2) of the Constitution obliges courts
to develop the common law in line with constitutional values such as fairness, good
faith, and ubuntu (Everfresh v Shoprite 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC), para 22). Justice Yacoob
noted that contract law cannot exist in isolation from the Constitution, as private law
must also reflect the transformative vision of the Constitution (Davis 2011).
The Court stressed that while the common law had not yet recognised an obligation to
negotiate in good faith, the idea was consistent with constitutional values. Upholding
such a principle would promote fairness in contractual relationships, especially where
there are power imbalances (Bhana and Pieterse 2005).
Court’s Findings:
The Court dismissed Everfresh’s appeal, because the argument for developing the
common law was not properly raised in the lower courts (Everfresh v Shoprite 2012 (1)
SA 256 (CC), para 72). However, it emphasised that constitutional values should
influence future cases, encouraging parties and courts to take good faith more seriously.
Although Everfresh lost, the judgment signalled an important shift in South African
contract law, opening space for fairness and equity to be part of legal reasoning (Klare
1998).
Evaluation:
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
Portfolio Exam (Semester 2)
DUE 7 October 2025
QUESTION ONE
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC)
is an example of a case where the Constitutional Court applied the principles of
transformative constitutionalism.
Discuss this case in the prescribed format (facts, legal question, reasons for the
decision or ratio decidendi and the court’s findings).
ANSWER:
Facts:
• Everfresh Market Virginia rented premises from Shoprite Checkers in terms of a
written lease agreement.
• The lease contained a clause that gave Everfresh the option to renew the lease if
the parties agreed on the rental amount for the new term.
• When the lease expired, Everfresh sought to exercise the renewal clause, but
Shoprite refused to negotiate a new rental amount.
• Everfresh argued that Shoprite was obliged to negotiate in good faith.
• The lower courts dismissed the claim, holding that South African contract law did
not generally enforce a duty to negotiate.
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
, Legal Question:
The central legal question was whether the common law of contract should be
developed, in line with constitutional values, to enforce a duty to negotiate in good faith
under a lease renewal clause.
Ratio / Reasons:
The Constitutional Court reasoned that section 39(2) of the Constitution obliges courts
to develop the common law in line with constitutional values such as fairness, good
faith, and ubuntu (Everfresh v Shoprite 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC), para 22). Justice Yacoob
noted that contract law cannot exist in isolation from the Constitution, as private law
must also reflect the transformative vision of the Constitution (Davis 2011).
The Court stressed that while the common law had not yet recognised an obligation to
negotiate in good faith, the idea was consistent with constitutional values. Upholding
such a principle would promote fairness in contractual relationships, especially where
there are power imbalances (Bhana and Pieterse 2005).
Court’s Findings:
The Court dismissed Everfresh’s appeal, because the argument for developing the
common law was not properly raised in the lower courts (Everfresh v Shoprite 2012 (1)
SA 256 (CC), para 72). However, it emphasised that constitutional values should
influence future cases, encouraging parties and courts to take good faith more seriously.
Although Everfresh lost, the judgment signalled an important shift in South African
contract law, opening space for fairness and equity to be part of legal reasoning (Klare
1998).
Evaluation:
Disclaimer:
All materials are for study assistance only. We do not condone academic dishonesty. Use at your own risk.
We are not liable for any consequences arising from misuse.
Redistribution, resale, or sharing without permission is prohibited.
