IRM1501
PORTFOLIO Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: 7 October 2025
QUESTION 1
EVERFRESH MARKET VIRGINIA (PTY) LTD V SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD 2012
(1) SA 256 (CC)
Facts
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd leased premises in the Virginia Shopping Centre from
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd. The lease, valid from April 2004 to March 2009, contained a
renewal clause requiring both parties to agree on rental for the extended term. Everfresh
gave notice to renew, suggesting a new rental, but Shoprite refused, arguing the clause was
unenforceable. Everfresh stayed on after the lease expired, and Shoprite sought eviction.
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the clause created no
enforceable duty to negotiate. Everfresh then approached the Constitutional Court, raising
constitutional values for the first time.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
EVERFRESH MARKET VIRGINIA (PTY) LTD V SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY)
LTD 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC)
Facts
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd leased premises in the Virginia Shopping Centre
from Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd. The lease, valid from April 2004 to March 2009,
contained a renewal clause requiring both parties to agree on rental for the extended
term. Everfresh gave notice to renew, suggesting a new rental, but Shoprite refused,
arguing the clause was unenforceable. Everfresh stayed on after the lease expired,
and Shoprite sought eviction. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal
held that the clause created no enforceable duty to negotiate. Everfresh then
approached the Constitutional Court, raising constitutional values for the first time.1
Legal Question
The central issue was whether clause 3 of the lease imposed a legal obligation on
the parties to negotiate renewal terms in good faith, and if not, whether the common
law of contract should be developed in line with section 39(2) of the Constitution to
require such negotiation.2
Reasons for the Decision / Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court, in a majority led by Yacoob J, held that courts must
consider whether the common law needs development to align with constitutional
values, including good faith and ubuntu in contracts. Section 39(2) requires the law
of contract to promote the spirit and purport of the Bill of Rights.3 The High Court‟s
failure to assess whether common law should evolve to enforce bona fide
1
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) [3]–[8].
2
Everfresh (n 1) [5].
3
Everfresh (n 1) [23].
PORTFOLIO Semester 2 2025
2 2025
Unique Number:
Due date: 7 October 2025
QUESTION 1
EVERFRESH MARKET VIRGINIA (PTY) LTD V SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY) LTD 2012
(1) SA 256 (CC)
Facts
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd leased premises in the Virginia Shopping Centre from
Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd. The lease, valid from April 2004 to March 2009, contained a
renewal clause requiring both parties to agree on rental for the extended term. Everfresh
gave notice to renew, suggesting a new rental, but Shoprite refused, arguing the clause was
unenforceable. Everfresh stayed on after the lease expired, and Shoprite sought eviction.
Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the clause created no
enforceable duty to negotiate. Everfresh then approached the Constitutional Court, raising
constitutional values for the first time.1
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
QUESTION 1
EVERFRESH MARKET VIRGINIA (PTY) LTD V SHOPRITE CHECKERS (PTY)
LTD 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC)
Facts
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd leased premises in the Virginia Shopping Centre
from Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd. The lease, valid from April 2004 to March 2009,
contained a renewal clause requiring both parties to agree on rental for the extended
term. Everfresh gave notice to renew, suggesting a new rental, but Shoprite refused,
arguing the clause was unenforceable. Everfresh stayed on after the lease expired,
and Shoprite sought eviction. Both the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal
held that the clause created no enforceable duty to negotiate. Everfresh then
approached the Constitutional Court, raising constitutional values for the first time.1
Legal Question
The central issue was whether clause 3 of the lease imposed a legal obligation on
the parties to negotiate renewal terms in good faith, and if not, whether the common
law of contract should be developed in line with section 39(2) of the Constitution to
require such negotiation.2
Reasons for the Decision / Ratio Decidendi
The Constitutional Court, in a majority led by Yacoob J, held that courts must
consider whether the common law needs development to align with constitutional
values, including good faith and ubuntu in contracts. Section 39(2) requires the law
of contract to promote the spirit and purport of the Bill of Rights.3 The High Court‟s
failure to assess whether common law should evolve to enforce bona fide
1
Everfresh Market Virginia (Pty) Ltd v Shoprite Checkers (Pty) Ltd 2012 (1) SA 256 (CC) [3]–[8].
2
Everfresh (n 1) [5].
3
Everfresh (n 1) [23].
