IRM1501
October/November
Portfolio 2025
(Answer Guide) - Due
1 - 7 October 2025
QUESTIONS WITH 100%
VERIFIED AND
CERTIFIED ANSWERS.
, 1|Page
IRM1501 October/November Portfolio 2025 (Answer Guide) - Due 1 - 7 October
2025
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2025
Question One
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256
(CC)
Introduction
The case of Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd is a
significant decision of the Constitutional Court that illustrates how the principles of
transformative constitutionalism interact with private law, particularly contract law. It
raised important questions about whether agreements to agree are enforceable and
whether constitutional values, such as good faith, should guide the development of the
common law (Currie & De Waal, 2022).
Facts of the Case
Everfresh Market Virginia (Everfresh) leased retail premises from Shoprite Checkers
(Shoprite). The lease agreement contained a renewal clause which stated that
Everfresh could renew the lease provided that it had faithfully and timeously performed
its obligations. However, the clause did not stipulate the rental amount or formula for
determining it, leaving those terms for future agreement. When Everfresh sought to
exercise its renewal option, Shoprite refused to negotiate new terms and instead
pursued eviction. Everfresh argued that the clause should be enforceable and that
Shoprite was obliged to negotiate in good faith (Everfresh v Shoprite, 2012 (1) SA 256
(CC)).
October/November
Portfolio 2025
(Answer Guide) - Due
1 - 7 October 2025
QUESTIONS WITH 100%
VERIFIED AND
CERTIFIED ANSWERS.
, 1|Page
IRM1501 October/November Portfolio 2025 (Answer Guide) - Due 1 - 7 October
2025
VERIFIED AND CERTIFIED ANSWERS. WRITTEN IN REQUIRED FORMAT AND WITHIN
GIVEN GUIDELINES. IT IS GOOD TO USE AS A GUIDE AND FOR REFERENCE, NEVER
PLAGARIZE. Thank you and success in your academics.
UNISA, 2025
Question One
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256
(CC)
Introduction
The case of Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd is a
significant decision of the Constitutional Court that illustrates how the principles of
transformative constitutionalism interact with private law, particularly contract law. It
raised important questions about whether agreements to agree are enforceable and
whether constitutional values, such as good faith, should guide the development of the
common law (Currie & De Waal, 2022).
Facts of the Case
Everfresh Market Virginia (Everfresh) leased retail premises from Shoprite Checkers
(Shoprite). The lease agreement contained a renewal clause which stated that
Everfresh could renew the lease provided that it had faithfully and timeously performed
its obligations. However, the clause did not stipulate the rental amount or formula for
determining it, leaving those terms for future agreement. When Everfresh sought to
exercise its renewal option, Shoprite refused to negotiate new terms and instead
pursued eviction. Everfresh argued that the clause should be enforceable and that
Shoprite was obliged to negotiate in good faith (Everfresh v Shoprite, 2012 (1) SA 256
(CC)).
