Definition
An implied covenant is a contractual obligation or promise that is not expressly stated in the written agreement but is nonetheless legally enforceable because courts read it into the contract by operation of law or from the evident intent of the parties.
Two distinct types of implied covenant arise in legal practice:
1. Implied-in-law covenant. A covenant that courts attach automatically to certain transactions regardless of the parties' subjective intent, typically because a statute, common law rule, or the use of particular operative words (such as "grant," "demise," or "bargain and sell" in a conveyance) triggers it. The content of the covenant is supplied by law, not by negotiation. The classic context is real property: when a grantor uses certain words of conveyance, a cluster of title covenants — seisin, right to convey, against encumbrances — may arise by implication without being spelled out.
2. Implied-in-fact covenant. A covenant inferred from the conduct, circumstances, and overall structure of the agreement to reflect what the parties actually, if silently, intended. Courts ask what a reasonable party in this transaction would have understood to be agreed upon. This category shades into the modern implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which most jurisdictions recognize as a background obligation in every contract.
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing — now the most litigated form — holds that each party to a contract must not act in a manner that destroys or injures the other party's right to receive the fruits of the bargain. It does not create new substantive rights beyond those found in the contract; it regulates how existing rights are exercised.
---
Common Confusion
IMPLIED COVENANT vs. EXPRESS COVENANT. The distinction is straightforward in principle but easily blurred in practice. An express covenant appears in writing and is explicitly agreed to. An implied covenant arises by law or inference, whether or not the parties thought about it. The confusion matters most in title disputes: a deed that appears bare on its face may nonetheless carry implied covenants of seisin or quiet enjoyment depending on the jurisdiction's recording acts and conveyancing statutes.
IMPLIED COVENANT vs. IMPLIED TERM. These concepts overlap but are not identical. An implied term fills a gap in the contract's subject matter (what the parties agreed to do). An implied covenant imposes an obligation on how a party must act in performing or exercising rights under the contract. In practice, courts sometimes use the terms interchangeably, which can obscure whether a court is reading in a missing promise or constraining the exercise of an existing one.
---
Why It Matters in Research
Researchers encounter implied covenant in two largely separate bodies of doctrine that are easy to conflate when navigating historical sources.
The older stratum — found throughout Burrill, Black, and Kent's Commentaries — uses "implied covenant" almost exclusively in the real property context, tied to specific words of conveyance in deeds and leases. If you are reading nineteenth-century cases or treatises on conveyancing, implied covenant refers to title warranties and quiet enjoyment obligations that attach by virtue of how the deed was drafted. The modern good-faith-and-fair-dealing usage is almost entirely absent from pre-twentieth-century sources. Searching historical databases for "implied covenant" without this awareness will surface deed-covenant cases when you may be researching contract performance obligations, and vice versa.
The good faith and fair dealing iteration accelerated in the mid-twentieth century, particularly through the Uniform Commercial Code and the Restatement (Second) of Contracts. Courts and commentators began using "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" as a term of art, distinct from earlier implied-in-law conveyancing covenants. This shift is not always cleanly marked in case reporters from the 1940s through 1960s; opinions may use implied covenant to mean either thing.
A critical research trap: historical sources will tell you that an implied covenant arises from words like "grant" or "demise." Modern sources will tell you an implied covenant of good faith arises in every contract. These are not the same rule and do not have the same remedial consequences. The conveyancing-era implied covenant runs with the land and may bind successors in title. The good faith covenant is personal to the contracting parties and sounds in contract damages, not in property.
For real estate title research, the interaction between implied deed covenants and statutory covenants of title (which many states have enacted to replace or supplement the common law defaults) is a persistent complication. Statutory schemes vary widely; implied covenant doctrine from one state may be entirely displaced by statute in another.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Burrill and Black are in full agreement on the classical meaning: an implied covenant is one inferred from the operative words of a deed or lease, with "grant," "demise," and "bargain and sell" as the paradigm triggers. Both cite Kent's Commentaries as authority, confirming that this usage was stable across mid-nineteenth-century American legal culture.
Black's adds a broader framing by cross-referencing the quasi-contract notion of law implying a promise to pay for services rendered — a conceptually adjacent but distinct idea that reflects the era's tendency to unify implied contract and implied covenant under a single heading. Modern doctrine separates these clearly: an implied-in-law promise to pay for labor is now analyzed as quantum meruit or unjust enrichment, not as covenant.
Bouvier's entry is incomplete in the source material available, directing to a cross-reference that cannot be evaluated. Its absence here does not signal a divergence; Bouvier's treatment of covenant was comprehensive elsewhere in the dictionary.
What the historical dictionaries collectively miss is the twentieth-century development of implied covenant as a freestanding duty of good faith in contract performance. None of the shelf sources contemplates this usage, which means a researcher relying solely on classical dictionary authority will find a significant gap when working with modern commercial contract disputes.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is recognized in virtually all U.S. jurisdictions for contract claims but varies significantly in scope. Some states — notably California — apply it broadly, permitting tort damages for breach in certain categories of contract. Most jurisdictions limit it to contract remedies and decline to use it to override express contractual rights. In real property, whether particular words of conveyance trigger implied title covenants depends on state statute and common law; researchers should not assume uniform coverage across jurisdictions.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
contracts_43: Interpretation — Good Faith and Fair Dealing (Implied Covenant) (The Law Mind Contracts & Commercial Law Encyclopedia)
realestate_21: Deed Covenants of Title — Present Covenants (Seisin, Right to Convey, Against Encumbrances) and Future Covenants (Warranty, Quiet Enjoyment, Further Assurances) (The Law Mind Real Estate Transactions & Construction Encyclopedia)
---