Blackacre was a tract of 100 acres retained by Byron, the owner, after he had developed the adjoining 400 acres as a residential subdivision. Byron had effectively imposed restrictive covenants on each lot in the 400 acres. Chaney offered Byron a good price for a five-acre tract located in a corner of Blackacre far away from the existing 400-acre residential subdivision. Byron conveyed the fiveacre tract to Chaney and imposed the same restrictive covenants on the five-acre tract as he had imposed on the lots in the adjoining 400 acres. Byron further covenanted that when he sold the remaining 95 acres of Blackacre he would impose the same restrictive covenants in the deed or deeds for the 95 acres. Byron's conveyance to Chaney was promptly and properly recorded. However, shortly thereafter, Byron conveyed the remaining 95 acres to Dart for $100,000 by a deed that made no mention of any restrictive covenants. Dart had no actual knowledge of the restrictive covenants in Chaney's deed. Dart now proposes to build an industrial park which would violate such restrictive covenants if they are applicable. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In an appropriate action by Chaney to enforce the restrictive covenants against Dart's 95-acre tract, if Dart wins it will be because 
the deed imposing the restrictions was not in the chain of title for the 95 acres when Dart bought. the disparity in acreage means that the covenant can only be personal to Byron. negative reciprocal covenants are not generally recognized. a covenant to impose restrictions is an illegal restraint on alienation.
Question: Blackacre was a tract of 100 acres retained by Byron, the owner, after he had developed the adjoining 400 acres as a residential subdivision. Byron had effectively imposed restrictive covenants on each lot in the 400 acres. Chaney offered Byron a good price for a five-acre tract located in a corner of Blackacre far away from the existing 400-acre residential subdivision. Byron conveyed the fiveacre tract to Chaney and imposed the same restrictive covenants on the five-acre tract as he had imposed on the lots in the adjoining 400 acres. Byron further covenanted that when he sold the remaining 95 acres of Blackacre he would impose the same restrictive covenants in the deed or deeds for the 95 acres. Byron's conveyance to Chaney was promptly and properly recorded. However, shortly thereafter, Byron conveyed the remaining 95 acres to Dart for $100,000 by a deed that made no mention of any restrictive covenants. Dart had no actual knowledge of the restrictive covenants in Chaney's deed. Dart now proposes to build an industrial park which would violate such restrictive covenants if they are applicable. The recording act of the jurisdiction provides: "No conveyance or mortgage of real property shall be good against subsequent purchasers for value and without notice unless the same be recorded according to law." In an appropriate action by Chaney to enforce the restrictive covenants against Dart's 95-acre tract, if Dart wins it will be because 
A. the deed imposing the restrictions was not in the chain of title for the 95 acres when Dart bought.
B. the disparity in acreage means that the covenant can only be personal to Byron.
C. negative reciprocal covenants are not generally recognized.
D. a covenant to impose restrictions is an illegal restraint on alienation.
Answer: