Able, owner of Blackacre and Whiteacre, two adjoining parcels, conveyed Whiteacre to Baker and covenanted in the deed to Baker that when he, Able, sold Blackacre he would impose restrictive covenants to prohibit uses that would compete with the filling station that Baker intended to construct and operate on Whiteacre. The deed was not recorded. Baker constructed and operated a filling station on Whiteacre and then conveyed Whiteacre to Dodd, who continued the filling station use. The deed did not refer to the restrictive covenant and was promptly and properly recorded. Able then conveyed Blackacre to Egan, who knew about Able's covenant with Baker to impose a covenant prohibiting the filling station use but nonetheless completed the transaction when he noted that no such covenant was contained in Able's deed to him. Egan began to construct a filling station on Blackacre. Dodd brought an appropriate action to enjoin Egan from using Blackacre for filling station purposes. If Dodd prevails, it will be because 
Egan had actual knowledge of the covenant to impose restrictions. Egan is bound by the covenant because of the doctrine of negative reciprocal covenants. business-related restrictive covenants are favored in the law. Egan has constructive notice of the possibility of the covenant resulting from the circumstances.