Final answer:
Implied covenants in a deed are for the personal benefit of the buyer and do not bind future owners. Restrictive covenants can limit property use but must align with legal precedents and constitutional considerations.
Step-by-step explanation:
Implied covenants refer to the non-explicit obligations assumed by the parties in a contract, specifically a deed in the context of real estate transactions. These covenants can cover various aspects, but the question specifically relates to whether they are for the personal benefit of a particular party and whether they bind future owners, also known as remote grantees. In answering the schoolwork question, the correct answer is: Implied covenants are only for the personal benefit of a buyer, not future owners. Hence, the implied covenants in a seller's grant deed to a buyer do not bind future owners.
Restrictive covenants are provisions in a deed limiting the use of the property and prohibiting certain uses, which can sometimes include exclusionary practices. In the landmark case of Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), the Supreme Court ruled that while these covenants are private agreements and do not directly violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the enforcement of such covenants by courts would be a violation since state courts are government institutions. This makes it clear that such provisions might be considered personal to the original parties involved and are not automatically enforceable against or binding on future property owners.