RES Exam Glossary

B. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Only an announced block qualifies for SERS; any other lease simply runs out, and the flat returns to HDB without compensation.(i) True. Owners in an announced block are compensated at the flat's market value as at the date of the announcement.(ii) False. Age and remaining lease do not qualify a block for SERS. HDB's announcement does, and Block 14 was not included.(iii) True. A lease is an estate for a fixed term, so at expiry the flat returns to HDB with no compensation.Watch out: The Voluntary Early Redevelopment Scheme has been announced but is not yet in operation.Rule: SERS is selective: HDB picks sites for their redevelopment potential and compensates only owners in announced blocks, with rehousing benefits that include a replacement flat on a fresh 99-year lease. Every other lease ends at expiry without compensation.Source: HDB, SERS, current at 1 October 2026; /learn/freehold-vs-leasehold-singapore

D. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. Purpose decides: items placed to improve the land are fixtures, items attached for their own enjoyment stay chattels, and the fixtures clause does not reach chattels.(i) True. Bolted plant serving the house was attached to improve it, so it is a fixture that passed with the sale.(ii) True. An object resting on its own weight can be a fixture if placed as part of a design for the land, and the plinth was built into the garden design.(iii) False. A sale with all fixtures carries fixtures only. A free-standing fridge is a chattel, so the clause does not reach it.(iv) True. Slight attachment so the item can be enjoyed as an object in itself points to a chattel.Watch out: Attachment only raises an inference either way. Do not decide on bolts and hooks alone.Rule: Whether an item is a fixture turns on the degree of annexation and, more importantly, its purpose: improving the land, or enjoying the object in itself. Chattels pass only if the contract says so.Source: Pan-United Marine Ltd v Chief Assessor, Court of Appeal, 2008; /learn/fixtures-chattels-meaning-of-land

C. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Under immediate indefeasibility, a good-faith buyer who registers takes good title even from a forger, though the forger's own title was open to challenge.(i) True. The forger was a party to his own fraud, so the fraud or forgery exception applied to him.(ii) False. That is the deeds-system rule. Under registration, the register, not the instrument, decides.(iii) False. The Assurance Fund pays only for loss through an omission, mistake or misfeasance of the Registrar or the Registrar's staff. Her loss came from the forger, so her claim is against him personally.(iv) True. Mr Teo registered on 6 May 2026 without fraud, so his title is good.Rule: A registered proprietor holds free of unregistered interests unless he or his agent was party to the fraud or forgery. A buyer who registers in good faith takes good title at once, even from a forger.Source: Land Titles Act 1993, ss 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 155(1) (sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 October 2026); United Overseas Bank v Bebe bte Mohammad, Court of Appeal, 2006; /learn/caveats-and-registration-of-title

D. (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (iii) and (iv) only. Only registration passes the legal estate, and the caveat bars the mortgage while it stands; his transfer was registered well inside 30 days.(i) False. No instrument passes an estate until registered. Payment and a signed transfer give contractual and equitable rights only.(ii) False. Lodging first gives the mortgage nothing while Mr Ho's caveat stands.(iii) True. His transfer is registered on 20 March, and registration is what passes the legal estate.(iv) True. The mortgage is a dealing inconsistent with his claim, and the Registrar must not register it while the caveat remains effective.Rule: An instrument passes no estate in registered land until it is registered; until then it operates only as a contract. The Registrar must not register a dealing a caveat prohibits; he notifies the caveator and registers it after 30 days unless a court order extends the caveat.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 45, s 119(4), s 120(1), sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 October 2026; /learn/caveats-and-registration-of-title

C. All of the above

Answer: All of the above. Caveat emptor protects silence only; his knowingly false answer and the repaint mislead, and the buyer relied on them whether or not he surveyed.(i) True. A seller need not volunteer physical defects, so saying nothing at the viewing was within caveat emptor.(ii) True. He knew his answer was untrue, which makes it a fraudulent misrepresentation.(iii) True. Repainting to hide the stains was concealment, an active step that can amount to a representation by conduct.(iv) True. The buyer relied on the answer, so failing to survey is no defence, even though inspection might have revealed the truth.Rule: On a sale of land a seller need not volunteer physical defects, and his duty of disclosure is confined to latent defects of title; that protects silence, not misleading. A knowingly false statement is fraudulent misrepresentation, active concealment can amount to a representation by conduct, and a buyer who relied on it is not defeated because he could have inspected.Source: Misrepresentation Act 1967 (statutory remedies sit alongside), sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 October 2026; /learn/misrepresentation-and-agent-liability

B. The Building (Strata Management) Act makes him liable for contributions levied by share value

Answer: The Building (Strata Management) Act makes him liable, as a subsidiary proprietor, for contributions levied by share value. No covenant is needed.Why not the others:• Notified positive covenant runs with land: The burden of a positive covenant does not run with land, and the Registrar notifies only negative or restrictive obligations.• Seller's indemnity covenant passes it on: An indemnity chain binds only those who sign it, and Mr Pang will not sign one.• Easement over common property imposes payment: An easement gives a right, not a duty to pay.Watch out: A new owner is also jointly and severally liable with the old one for contributions unpaid when he becomes the owner.Rule: Positive obligations cannot run with land as covenants, so strata schemes rest on statute. The management corporation levies contributions payable by subsidiary proprietors in proportion to their lots' share values.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 139(3)(a); Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 s 40(2)-(3); sso.agc.gov.sg, current versions at 1 October 2026; /learn/strata-management-bmsma-mcst

D. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Joint tenancy is the default and survivorship overrides a will, but the presumption and the declaration route both turn on equal shares.(i) True. Joint tenancy is the default unless the transfer describes them as tenants in common.(ii) False. The statutory presumption is equal shares, not shares by contribution.(iii) True. Survivorship takes her interest outside her estate, so her will cannot reach it.(iv) False. The declaration route is open to tenants in common in equal shares, not 70:30.Rule: Co-owners hold as joint tenants unless described as tenants in common, and tenants in common are presumed to hold equal shares unless stated otherwise. Tenants in common in equal shares may jointly declare, by approved-form instrument, that they hold as joint tenants.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 53(1) to (3); sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 October 2026; /learn/joint-tenancy-vs-tenancy-in-common

D. (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv)

Answer: (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv). Survivorship gives Mrs Tan the whole Tan unit outside the will, while Mrs Lim's share passes under her will through her executor.(i) True. On a joint tenant's death the survivor takes the whole by survivorship. The gift to the son does not reach the unit.(ii) True. Tenants in common have no survivorship. Mrs Lim's share passes under her will, and only her personal representative, holding a grant of probate, can transfer it.(iii) True. Nothing of Mr Tan's interest passes through his estate. Mrs Tan becomes sole owner once the death is proved and noted on the title.(iv) True. The Lim unit needs Mr Lim's signature for his half and the executor's for the other.Watch out: A joint tenant cannot leave his interest by will, because survivorship operates outside the will.Rule: Joint tenants hold the whole together, and on one's death the survivor takes the entirety. Tenants in common hold distinct shares, and a deceased owner's share passes under her will.Source: Land Titles Act 1993, sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 Oct 2026; /learn/joint-tenancy-vs-tenancy-in-common

Open this question on its own page

D. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Survivorship operates at death, before a will can speak, and only a declaration both served and registered would have severed the joint tenancy.(i) True. A joint tenant's interest passes to the survivor at the moment of death, so it never forms part of his estate.(ii) False. A will speaks only at death, by which time survivorship has already operated. Signing it did not sever.(iii) True. Severance would have made him a tenant in common in an equal half share, which his will could carry.(iv) False. Registration is part of the mode of severance, not a formality after it. Service without registration does not sever.Rule: A will cannot reach a joint tenant's interest, which passes by survivorship at death. A joint tenant severs unilaterally by serving an instrument of declaration on the others; on its registration he holds as tenant in common in an equal share.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 53(5)-(6), sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 October 2026; Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching [2018] SGCA 24; /learn/joint-tenancy-vs-tenancy-in-common

C. (ii) and (iii) only

Answer: (ii) and (iii) only. Severance by declaration takes effect only on registration, so the joint tenancy was intact when Mr Ang died.(i) False. Service was duly made, but severance takes effect on registration, which never happened.(ii) True. The joint tenancy was intact at death, so survivorship carried his interest to Mr Boon.(iii) True. The interest passed outside his estate, so the will had nothing to operate on.(iv) False. Statutory severance gives the declarant a share equal to each remaining joint tenant's, whatever each owner paid.Watch out: Due service is only the first step. Without registration there is no severance.Rule: A joint tenant may sever alone by an approved-form declaration served personally or by registered post on the other joint tenants. The owners hold as tenants in common only once the duly served instrument is registered.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 53(5) and (6), sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 October 2026; Chan Lung Kien v Chan Shwe Ching [2018] SGCA 24 (registration required for severance by this route)

B. (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. The external wall is common property, but a sliding window and a pipe serving one lot both belong to her lot.(i) True. An external wall used by the occupiers of two or more lots is common property, which the management corporation must repair.(ii) False. The window is set in the external wall, but a sliding window is part of her lot, so the duty to repair common property does not reach it.(iii) True. The Act puts louvres, casement windows, sliding windows and windows with movable parts on a lot's exterior wall in the lot.(iv) True. A pipe is common property only if it serves two or more lots or the common property. This one serves only her lot.Watch out: Being set in an external wall does not make a window common property.Rule: A management corporation must maintain and repair the common property. Movable windows on a lot's exterior wall, and pipes serving only one lot, are part of the lot.Source: Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 s 29(1)(b)(i) (duty to repair), s 2(1) (definition of common property) and s 2(9)(a) (windows); sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 October 2026

D. All of the above

Answer: All of the above. Each statement tracks a route in section 11; none lets owners reduce a correctly assigned share value because contributions feel heavy.(i) True. Except as the strata Acts expressly provide, a share value must not be altered on or after registration of the strata title application.(ii) True. The Registrar may correct an entry made in error.(iii) True. The court may order an amendment where the value was fraudulently assigned.(iv) True. A subdivision or amalgamation of lots may alter the share values concerned.Watch out: Heavy contributions are not a ground for change, which is the point Ms Neo has to make.Rule: A registered share value is fixed, subject to narrow exceptions for error, fraud, and subdivision or amalgamation.Source: Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 s 11(1), (2), (3) and (4); Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 (sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 October 2026)

Open this question on its own page

C. (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. By-laws and later levy instalments bind the owner of the day, a levy binds every owner, and buyers may ask for arrears information.(i) True. The by-laws bind every subsidiary proprietor and occupier of a lot; letting the unit changes nothing.(ii) False. A levy resolved at a general meeting binds all owners, whether or not they voted for it. It is levied on every lot in proportion to share value.(iii) True. Levies are payable by whoever is the subsidiary proprietor when each instalment falls due, and these instalments start after Mr Lee completes.(iv) True. A prospective purchaser may apply for information such as sums owing and levies resolved on, which lets his solicitors clear the $1,450 in the completion account.Rule: The by-laws bind every subsidiary proprietor and occupier. Contributions and levies are charged on every lot by share value and paid by whoever is the subsidiary proprietor when each instalment falls due.Source: Building (Strata Management) Act 2004 (BSMA), s 47; sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 Oct 2026

B. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. The 12-month window and the one-time rescission right are right, but both 80% limbs must be met and only a Board order binds dissenters.(i) True. The signatures must be gathered within 12 months of the first owner signing on 14 May 2026, so the window runs to May 2027.(ii) False. 81% of share values is enough on that limb, but both limbs apply at every age, and 79.4% of strata area fails.(iii) True. A signing owner may rescind within 5 days, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays, and only once.(iv) False. Reaching the threshold only opens the way to an application. Dissenting owners are bound only when the Board approves it and orders the sale.Rule: Where 10 years or more have passed since the latest TOP, owners with not less than 80% of the share values and not less than 80% of the total strata area must sign within 12 months of the first signature. Dissenters are bound only by a Strata Titles Board order.Upcoming change: The Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Bill 2026, passed 8 Sep 2026 and not yet in force, cuts signing time to 6 months. Where the first signature came before commencement, as here, the current rules continue. The answer applies the current law.Source: Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967 s 84A(1); First Schedule, paragraphs 2, 6 and 8; sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 Oct 2026; MinLaw, Proposed amendments to the collective sale regime, 4 Aug 2026, read 22 Oct 2026

C. (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. The 1994 reform was not retrospective: Ravi, starting in 1998, can gain nothing, while Ah Seng's earlier twelve years leave him to the transitional provisions.(i) False. The reform was not retrospective. That is why a transitional regime was needed.(ii) True. Ravi began in 1998, after the reform, and no length of possession gives title against a registered proprietor.(iii) False. From 1994 the 12-year limitation bar does not help an unauthorised occupier of unregistered land either.(iv) True. His twelve years were complete in 1990, before the change. The transitional provisions kept a pending possessory-title application alive and allowed six months from 1 March 1994 to apply. That window closed in September 1994, so his position now depends on whether he applied in time.Rule: Since 1 March 1994, no length of possession gives title against a registered proprietor, except under the transitional provisions. The same reform removed the 12-year limitation bar for anyone merely in unauthorised occupation.Source: Land Titles Act 1993 s 50 and s 174(7) and (8); Limitation Act 1959 s 9(3); sso.agc.gov.sg, current versions at 1 October 2026; /learn/state-land-lbc-tol-encroachment

D. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. A father paying for property in his child's name raises the presumption of advancement, a stranger would face a resulting trust, and either presumption yields to proof of Mr Sim's intention.Why not the others:• (ii) and (iv) only: (i) is also true. A friend is outside the advancement categories, so equity presumes a resulting trust for the payer.• (i), (iii) and (iv) only: (iii) is false and (ii) is true. Writing is needed to prove a declaration of trust of land, but that rule does not affect resulting, implied or constructive trusts.• (i) and (iii) only: (iii) is false, and the true statements (ii) and (iv) are left out.Watch out: The presumptions only decide who must prove intention; evidence of what Mr Sim meant in 2019 decides the case.Rule: Where one person pays for property put in another's name, equity presumes a resulting trust for the payer. The presumption of advancement (a gift) displaces it for transfers from husband to wife and from father to child; the Court of Appeal indicated the categories may be extended, for example to a mother and her child, and that the strength of the presumption varies with the facts. Either presumption yields to evidence of the payer's actual intention (Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2007] SGCA 54 at [57]-[67]). Resulting trusts need no writing (Civil Law Act 1909 s 7(3)).Source: elitigation.sg, Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2007] SGCA 54; sso.agc.gov.sg, Civil Law Act 1909 s 7, read 3 Oct 2026

B. Decline until a registered lasting power of attorney or a court deputyship order is produced

Answer: Decline until a registered lasting power of attorney or a court deputyship order is produced. An ordinary power ends once capacity is lost.Why not the others:• Proceed, as the power covers property: However widely it is worded, an ordinary power is spent once the donor loses capacity.• Mr Ang signs the agency agreement himself: Signing in his own name gives him no power over his mother's property.• Register the existing power with the Office first: Registration is a step for lasting powers, not a cure for an ordinary one.Rule: An ordinary power of attorney stops working when the donor loses capacity. A registered lasting power whose donee holds property and affairs powers, or a court deputyship order, is then needed to deal with her property, and the salesperson must verify that authority.Source: Mental Capacity Act 2008; Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care, First Schedule to the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010 (in force 15 Nov 2010, current at 1 Oct 2026, sso.agc.gov.sg), para 4(2)(b); CEA Professional Service Manual (Practice Guidelines, version 1.0 issued 1 Jan 2014, current at 1 Oct 2026, cea.gov.sg), para 1.7.2; /learn/capacity-to-hold-land-minors-companies-mental-capacity

Open this question on its own page

B. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. The apartment vests in the Official Assignee on the order, but CPF moneys are protected.(i) True. The apartment vests by operation of law on the order, without any further conveyance, assignment or transfer.(ii) False. CPF moneys do not pass to the Official Assignee or anyone acting for creditors, so the savings are beyond reach.(iii) False. Once the apartment has vested, it is no longer Marcus's to sell. Realising it is for the Official Assignee, not the bankrupt.(iv) True. Realising vested property for the creditors is exactly what the Official Assignee does.Watch out: The $900,000 of debt changes nothing about what vests.Rule: A bankruptcy order vests the bankrupt's property in the Official Assignee for division among creditors, but CPF moneys are protected. That is why a bankruptcy search is part of due diligence on a private sale.Source: Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 s 327 (sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 1 October 2026); Central Provident Fund Act 1953 s 24(2) (sso.agc.gov.sg); /learn/en-bloc-auction-and-the-private-sale-process (current at 1 October 2026)

Open this question on its own page

D. $59,200 on exercise, with the buyer's stamp duty due by 5 June 2026

Answer: $59,200 on exercise, with the buyer's stamp duty due by 5 June 2026, 14 days after exercise in Singapore.Working:1. 5% of $1,480,000 = $74,000 deposit.2. $74,000 - $14,800 option fee already paid = $59,200 on exercise.3. 22 May 2026 plus 14 days = 5 June 2026.Why not the others:• $74,000 payable on exercise: This treats the option fee as outside the deposit. The $14,800 already paid counts towards the 5% deposit.• $59,200, with duty due at completion: Stamp duty runs from the date of the document, not from completion.• $59,200, with duty due by 21 June: The 30-day period applies to a document signed overseas and runs from its receipt in Singapore. This option was exercised in Singapore.Watch out: The $1,460,000 valuation does not matter: duty is charged on the higher of price and value, which here is the price.Rule: On a private resale the option fee counts towards the deposit, so the buyer pays the balance of the deposit on exercise. Stamp duty on a document signed in Singapore is due within 14 days after its date; one signed overseas has 30 days from receipt in Singapore.Source: IRAS, stamp duty for property, read 1 Oct 2026

D. The $1,000 option fee is within HDB's limit, but the $5,800 deposit exceeds it

Answer: The $1,000 option fee is within HDB's limit, but the $5,800 deposit exceeds it. The two payments together may not exceed $5,000.Working:1. $1,000 + $4,800 = $5,800.2. $5,800 - $5,000 = $800 over the limit.Why not the others:• Fee and $5,800 deposit both within limit: The Option Fee and Option Exercise Fee together may not exceed $5,000, and $5,800 is $800 over.• Both the $1,000 fee and deposit exceed: $1,000 is the top of the permitted $1 to $1,000 range, so the option fee is in order.• Fee exceeds, but the deposit is within: Reverses both halves. The fee is in range, and the total is over.Watch out: The $620,000 price plays no part, because HDB's limits are fixed sums, so the private-property habit of 1% on grant and 4% on exercise has no place on a flat.Rule: On an HDB resale the Option Fee is $1 to $1,000, paid when the option is granted, and the Option Exercise Fee may not take the total above $5,000. An arrangement over the limit has to be renegotiated before the option is granted.Source: hdb.gov.sg, Option to Purchase When Buying a Resale Flat, read 1 October 2026

D. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Incapacity makes a contract voidable, not void, where the other side knew, and capacity is presumed unless disproved for the decision.(i) True. The daughter's warning to the buyer's salesperson fixes the buyer's side with knowledge, so the option is voidable.(ii) False. Incapacity makes the contract voidable, not void.(iii) False. A diagnosis does not by itself establish inability to make this decision.(iv) True. This is the statutory presumption of capacity.Rule: A contract made by a person lacking mental capacity is voidable at his instance only where the other party knew or ought to have known. Capacity is presumed, cannot be disproved merely by age, appearance or a condition, and is judged decision by decision on the balance of probabilities.Source: Mental Capacity Act 2008 (SSO, Act current at October 2026)

B. The seller is not ready to complete on 30 September and is still not ready two weeks later

Answer: The seller is not ready to complete on 30 September and is still not ready two weeks later. Time was made of the essence, so the completion date is a condition.Why not the others:• Completion account three days late: A breach of a term that is not a condition. It does not deprive the buyer of substantially the whole benefit, so it sounds in damages only.• Keys released ninety minutes late: A breach of a term that is not a condition. It does not deprive the buyer of substantially the whole benefit, so it sounds in damages only.• Built-in oven missing at handover: A breach of a term that is not a condition, and it does not deprive the buyer of substantially the whole benefit.Rule: An innocent party may terminate under a clause allowing it, on renunciation, on breach of a condition, or on a breach depriving him of substantially the whole benefit of the contract. Making time of the essence for completion turns the completion date into a condition.Source: RDC Concrete v Sato Kogyo [2007] SGCA 39 (Court of Appeal, 29 Aug 2007), [89] to [113]

B. Against the seller, who is liable unless he proves reasonable grounds for believing the figure was true

Answer: Against the seller, who is liable unless he proves reasonable grounds for believing the figure was true. Ms Rao is not a party to the contract.Why not the others:• Against the seller, if fraud is proved: Fraud is not an element of the statutory claim. The burden is on the seller to prove reasonable grounds.• Against Ms Rao, with the reversed burden: Ms Rao is not a party to the sale and purchase. A claim against her lies in negligence at common law, where the buyer carries the burden.• Against Ms Rao, if she knew it was wrong: The statutory claim does not run against her. Separately, CEA may take disciplinary action against her for the misstatement.Watch out: Completion does not bar damages, and the seller will struggle to show reasonable grounds when the area could have been checked against the strata plan.Rule: A party to a contract who made a misrepresentation that induced it is liable in damages unless he proves he had reasonable ground to believe, and did believe up to the contract, that the facts were true. An agent who is not a party is sued in negligence instead.Source: Misrepresentation Act 1967, section 2(1), sso.agc.gov.sg, read 1 October 2026; /learn/misrepresentation-and-agent-liability

B. $176,000

Answer: $176,000: the $150,000 he overpaid plus the $26,000 of wasted fittings, on the tortious measure.Working:1. $1,620,000 − $1,470,000 = $150,000 overpaid2. $150,000 + $26,000 wasted fittings = $176,000Why not the others:• $150,000, the overpayment only: Leaves out the wasted fittings.• $230,000, measured against value with approval: Uses the $1,700,000 figure, which measures the bargain he was promised: the contractual measure.• $256,000, contractual measure plus fittings: Adds the fittings to the contractual measure, which section 2(1) does not use.Watch out: Do not measure against what the unit would be worth if the statement were true.Rule: A party who contracts after the other party's misrepresentation recovers damages as if it were fraudulent, unless the representor proves reasonable grounds for believing it true up to the contract. The measure is tortious: the position had the statement not been made, plus consequential losses from the transaction.Source: Misrepresentation Act 1967, s 2(1) (SSO, Act current at October 2026)

B. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Mdm Chua is named and given the right to enforce, but the Act gives her a benefit, not the burdens of a party.(i) True. The clause names Mdm Chua and says she may enforce it, so she may sue although she signed nothing.(ii) False. A variation clause controls whether his right can later be changed, not whether he has one now. It sits alongside his right.(iii) False. The Act lets a third party take a benefit. It does not make her a party who can be sued on the contract.(iv) True. The common-law privity rule gave a non-party no claim, which is why the Act was needed.Rule: A third party may enforce a term if the contract expressly says so, or if the term purports to benefit him, unless the parties did not intend that; he must be identified by name, class or description. A reserved power to vary without his consent does not remove his right.Source: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001, ss 2(1), 2(2), 2(3) and 3(3)(a) (SSO, Act current at 1 October 2026)

A. (i) only

Answer: (i) only. Ratification needs knowledge of the material facts and adoption of the whole deal, and Mr Lau has neither.(i) True. Banking one month's rent without knowing of two material terms is not an informed adoption.(ii) False. Ratification is all or nothing. He cannot keep the terms that suit him and reject the rest.(iii) False. An unauthorised act is not void, and lack of authority is exactly what ratification cures.(iv) False. Without ratification Mr Lau is not bound, and the tenant's claim lies against the salesperson for breach of warranty of authority.Rule: A principal may adopt an unauthorised act expressly or by conduct, and ratification relates back to the date of the act. The agent must have purported to act for him, and he must ratify knowing the material facts and adopt the whole transaction.Source: Alternative Advisors Investments v Asidokona Mining Resources [2024] SGCA 3 (Court of Appeal, 7 Feb 2024), [52] (conditions for ratification, including the principal's knowledge); Chu Said Thong v Vision Law LLC [2014] SGHC 160 (High Court, 14 Aug 2014), [230] (the agent's strict liability on the warranty)

C. $16,600

Answer: $16,600. That is $13,200 of extra rent over the term plus the wasted $3,400 of costs; honest belief is no defence.Working:1. $6,750 − $6,200 = $550 more a month2. $550 × 24 months = $13,2003. $13,200 + $3,400 wasted costs = $16,600Why not the others:• $0, as he acted honestly: Treats honesty as a defence, but the liability is strict.• $13,200, the extra rent only: Leaves out the wasted costs.• $20,000, both sets of costs: Counts both sets of costs, though one set would have been paid anyway.Watch out: The landlord is not liable, as he neither authorised nor ratified the tenancy.Rule: A person who acts as agent impliedly warrants that he has the principal's authority, and is strictly liable if he has none and the principal does not ratify. Damages put the third party where he would have been had the warranty been true.Source: Chu Said Thong v Vision Law LLC [2014] SGHC 160 (High Court, 14 Aug 2014), [227] to [232] (liability is strict; damages as if the warranty were true)

A. (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. A fiduciary must disclose a personal interest, and breach does not depend on the price or any loss.(i) True. A sale to a company his wife part-owns is a conflict he had to disclose fully enough for informed consent before Mdm Lim decided.(ii) False. Even if the price was within market value, a fair price does not cure an undisclosed conflict.(iii) True. Liability for breach of fiduciary duty does not depend on proof that the price was too low, or on any loss.(iv) True. CEA can deal with a breach of the Code of Ethics whether or not the client sues. The disciplinary route runs separately.Rule: An agent is a fiduciary. He must not let his interest conflict with his principal's, must not make a secret profit, and must disclose any personal interest fully enough for informed consent; the CEA Code separately requires a written declaration of any conflict.Source: Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (First Schedule to the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, in force 15 Nov 2010), para 13(2)(a); CEA, Codes of conduct page, updated 15 Aug 2025, read 22 Oct 2026

C. On the clause's words, which cover this sale, so effective cause need not be shown

Answer: On the clause's words, which cover this sale, so effective cause need not be shown. Mdm Ang was introduced in the term and took her option on 5 August, within three months after 30 June.Why not the others:• On effective cause, failing for inactivity after May: Effective cause applies only where the agreement is silent, and the tail clause deals with the point.• By CEA under its regulatory powers: CEA regulates conduct. Whether commission is owed is a contractual claim for mediation, arbitration or the courts.• Against the agency, as its appointment ended: A right under a tail clause is designed to outlive the appointment.Rule: An agent's right to commission is governed by the contract. Effective cause is an implied term that applies only where the agreement is silent, and a tail or protection clause deals with the point expressly.Source: Goh Lay Khim v Isabel Redrup Agency [2017] SGCA 11 (Court of Appeal, 10 Feb 2017), [28]; CEA, Dispute resolution page, updated 28 Aug 2026, read 22 Oct 2026

C. (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. Substance decides: exclusive possession for a term at a rent is a tenancy, so lease duty is chargeable.(i) False. The heading does not change what the document grants, and a tenancy agreement is chargeable.(ii) True. Sole keys and a duty to give notice before entering point to exclusive possession.(iii) False. It is unstamped, but want of stamping affects the document's use in court, not whether a tenancy exists.(iv) True. 18 x $3,200 is $57,600, and 0.4% of that is $230.40, rounded down to $230.Rule: Exclusive possession for a term at a rent creates a tenancy; a licence is bare permission to be on the premises. A lease of four years or less pays 0.4% of the total rent, rounded down, and is stamped within 14 days of signing in Singapore; an unstamped instrument is inadmissible until the duty and any penalty are paid.Source: IRAS, stamp duty for leases, rates in force from 22 February 2014; /learn/lease-vs-licence-singapore

B. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Only the deposit and the notice-then-court route are lawful; self-help against the tenant's goods or utilities is not.(i) True. Arrears are exactly what the deposit secures, so she may apply it to them.(ii) False. Taking the tenant's goods to press for rent is distress without a writ, which s 4 forbids. It exposes her to a claim for their return and damages.(iii) False. Cutting off utilities to press for payment is self-help the law does not give a landlord, and breaches her covenant for quiet enjoyment, whatever warning is given.(iv) True. Serving the notice the tenancy requires and then obtaining a court order for possession is the lawful route.Rule: A landlord recovers an occupied home by serving the required notice and, if the tenant will not leave, obtaining a court order for possession. The deposit may be applied to defaults, but the tenant's goods can be reached only through a writ of distress.Source: Distress Act 1934 ss 4, 5(1), sso.agc.gov.sg, current version read 22 Oct 2026; /learn/landlord-and-tenant-law-covenants-forfeiture

A. $2,025

Answer: $2,025. Commission is repaid in proportion to the months unexpired when the tenancy ends after month 15, which is 9 of 24.Working:1. 24 - 15 = 9 months unexpired2. 9/24 x $5,400 = $2,025Why not the others:• $2,475, counted from the notice: 11/24 x $5,400 = $2,475 counts from the notice in month 13, but the clause looks to when the tenancy ends.• $5,400, the whole commission: Repays the whole commission and ignores the proportion.• $4,050, worked on the deposit: 9/24 x $10,800 = $4,050 applies the fraction to the deposit, which plays no part in the formula.Rule: A diplomatic clause is a contractual term, so its words decide the sum repaid. The security deposit secures performance and is returnable at the end subject to deductions.Source: CEA, Tenancy Agreement Template for Private Residential Property, Version 1.4, updated 12 Aug 2026, linked from cea.gov.sg Agreements and checklists (page updated 14 Aug 2026), isomer-user-content.by.gov.sg/71/90401527-c65c-4350-be06-f68295fe3c61, read 11 Nov 2026, item 11 (pro rata refund of commission) and item 14 (diplomatic/break clause); /learn/leasing-private-residential-property

B. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. With no diplomatic clause Lithe must see out the term, and the deposit secures its performance without capping the claim.(i) True. Lithe signed as tenant, and nothing lets it break the fixed term, so it stays liable unless the landlord accepts a surrender.(ii) False. The manager used the unit, but he signed nothing and promised the landlord nothing. The 2001 Act lets a third party enforce a term made for his benefit, but imposes no obligation on him.(iii) False. Closing the office is Lithe's own commercial choice, and the unit can still be used as a home, so performance is not radically different and the lease is not frustrated.(iv) True. The landlord may claim rent as it falls due beyond the deposit, subject to his duty to mitigate.Rule: A diplomatic clause is a negotiated break right that the law does not imply, so without one a fixed term runs its course and the tenancy binds only the party who signed it. A commercial decision does not frustrate a lease, and a deposit is security for performance, not a ceiling on the claim.Source: Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001 s 2(1), sso.agc.gov.sg, current version read 22 Oct 2026; Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd [2014] SGCA 35, decided 30 May 2014; /learn/leasing-private-residential-property

A. (ii) only

Answer: (ii) only. A permit and her prior knowledge are not defences; the permit only goes to reasonableness.(i) False. Working within permit hours does not defeat the claim. A permit authorises the activity, not the harm.(ii) True. Compliance is evidence of reasonableness, which the court weighs with the other facts.(iii) False. She did know of the redevelopment, but coming to the nuisance is not a defence.(iv) False. Noise and vibration from temporary works can be a nuisance where unreasonable. The cracked walls add physical damage to the claim rather than replacing it.Rule: Private nuisance is an unreasonable and substantial interference with the use and enjoyment of land, judged by locality, duration, timing and seriousness. For temporary building works the question is usually whether reasonable care was taken to keep the disturbance down.Source: PEX International Pte Ltd v Lim Seng Chye [2019] SGCA 82, grounds of 19 Dec 2019, at [41] and [54] (nuisance as a wrongful interference with the use and enjoyment of land, controlled by reasonable user); /learn/property-torts-mortgages-co-ownership

D. (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. Trespass needs no damage, and the neighbour who chose the route is liable too.(i) False. The land is undamaged, but trespass needs no damage.(ii) True. Driving onto the plot after a written refusal is a direct, unauthorised entry.(iii) False. The contractor is independent, but the neighbour told it to use the route, so he authorised the trespass and is liable too.(iv) True. An injunction restrains a continuing or repeated trespass.Rule: Trespass to land is a direct, unauthorised interference with land in another's possession, actionable without damage. A person who engages an independent contractor is generally not liable for its torts, but is liable where he authorised or directed the wrongful act.Source: Aviation Hub Pte Ltd v Higgins, Daniel [2022] SGHC 281, 3 Nov 2022, at [15] (elements of trespass to land) and [32] (injunctions); /learn/property-torts-mortgages-co-ownership

B. To Kestrel Bank, and to the borrower if he knew it would go to him for that loan

Answer: To Kestrel Bank, and to the borrower if he knew it would go to him for that loan. He owes it to his client in contract and tort, and to the borrower only if he knew the report would go to him for that loan.Why not the others:• All four readers who act on it: Liability needs proximity. The neighbour is a stranger to the transaction, and the second lender used it for a purpose Mr Ho never undertook.• No one, financial loss being unrecoverable: Pure economic loss is recoverable where proximity exists, so the no-duty answer is wrong.• Kestrel Bank and the second lender: The second lender used it a year later for a different loan, a purpose Mr Ho never undertook.Watch out: Relying on the same report is not enough. The duty reaches only the transaction the valuer knew it was for.Rule: Liability for a careless statement causing pure economic loss needs proximity. It exists where the maker knows the statement will reach the claimant for a particular transaction and be relied on for that purpose, and the reliance is reasonable.Source: Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency [2007] SGCA 37, decided 8 Aug 2007, at [73]; /learn/property-torts-mortgages-co-ownership

A. The bank failed to take reasonable care to obtain the true market value, and Mr Chong may claim

Answer: The bank failed to take reasonable care to obtain the true market value, and Mr Chong may claim. Against recent comparables the shortfall is about $250,000.Working:1. Comparables about $1,400,000 less the $1,150,000 sale price = about $250,000 shortfall.Why not the others:• Sale stands, the mortgagee selling when and to whom it likes: It may choose when to sell, but it must sell in good faith with reasonable care, and a connected buyer attracts close scrutiny.• Sale stands, its one duty being to account for surplus: Accounting for the surplus does not excuse selling badly.• A trustee bound to obtain the highest price: The mortgagee is not a trustee bound to get the best conceivable price. The standard is reasonable care.Watch out: One week's exposure, no valuation, a connected buyer and the shortfall against comparables together show the failure. A sale to a connected party is also open to being set aside.Rule: A mortgagee may choose when to sell and need not wait for a better market, but it must act in good faith and take reasonable care to obtain the true market value at the time of sale. A sale to a connected party attracts close scrutiny, and the mortgagee must show reasonable precautions.Source: Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd [1971] Ch 949 and Tse Kwong Lam v Wong Chit Sen [1983] 1 WLR 1349 (PC), applied in Goh Chin Soon v Vickers Capital Ltd [2000] SGHC 281, 30 Dec 2000; /learn/property-torts-mortgages-co-ownership

C. Yes, without a court order, as interest has been in arrears for over one month

Answer: Yes, without a court order, as interest has been in arrears for over one month. The interest due on 20 July was unpaid one month later, on 20 August, which alone made the power of sale exercisable well before 1 October.Why not the others:• Must wait for the notice to mature on 14 November: The notice route is only one ground. The grounds are alternatives, and the interest ground is already met.• A foreclosure order is needed first: Foreclosure is a separate remedy that needs a court order. It is no precondition of sale.• The interest ground needs two months of arrears: The two-month period comes from English legislation. The Act here requires one month.Watch out: No court order does not mean no duty. The bank must still take reasonable care to obtain the true market value.Rule: The power of sale arises on any one of three grounds: three months' default after a notice demanding payment, interest unpaid for one month after falling due, or breach of another provision of the deed or the Act. None needs a court order.Source: Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 s 25 (regulation of exercise of power of sale), applied to registered mortgages by Land Titles Act 1993 s 69(1); Land Titles Act 1993 s 76 (foreclosure); both sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026

B. His home use may continue, and trading from the house needs URA's planning permission

Answer: His home use may continue, and trading from the house needs URA's planning permission. A rezoning neither ends an authorised use nor grants consent.Why not the others:• Home use ends at the next review: The Master Plan works forward. It does not end a use authorised when it began, and compels no owner to redevelop.• He may trade at once under the zoning: The new zoning makes an application plausible, not unnecessary. A material change of use still needs permission.• Home use ends and he may trade at once: Both halves are wrong: the home use stays lawful, and trading still needs permission.Watch out: Reading the new zoning as a standing consent is how an owner meets an enforcement notice.Rule: The Master Plan shows the use and intensity permitted on each plot and works forward: it ends no authorised use and compels no redevelopment. A material change of use is development and needs URA's planning permission, decided on the merits.Source: Planning Act 1998 s 3(1), s 6 (Master Plan) and s 12; sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026; URA, Planning permission guidelines (last updated 18 Aug 2026, read 22 Oct 2026: permission is required for development, including changing the use of premises)

A. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Only Written Permission lets development proceed, and structural works separately need approved plans, so early piling breaches both regimes.(i) True. Piling before Written Permission is development without permission, so URA may take enforcement action.(ii) False. Piling is building works, not a preliminary. In-principle approval authorises none of it.(iii) False. A later permission does not reach back to authorise earlier works.(iv) True. Building control is a second regime with its own enforcement. The Commissioner of Building Control approves the plans and can order work to stop.Rule: Provisional Permission approves a proposal in principle and attaches conditions; Written Permission, granted once they are cleared, is what allows development to proceed. Building works separately need plans approved by the Commissioner of Building Control.Source: Planning Act 1998 s 12 (unauthorised development) and s 17 (provisional permission); Building Control Act 1989 s 5 (approval of plans) and s 6 (permit to carry out structural works); both sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026

C. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. Plot ratio fixes the floor area and site coverage fixes the footprint; coverage is not a second cap on floor area.(i) True. 2,500 sq m at 1.4 gives 3,500 sq m, the plot ratio applying to the whole site.(ii) True. 40% of 2,500 sq m is a 1,000 sq m footprint.(iii) False. Coverage limits the footprint, not the floor area. Reading it as a second cap throws away 2,500 sq m the plot ratio permits.(iv) True. 3,500 sq m on a 1,000 sq m footprint needs at least four storeys, well inside the eight allowed.Watch out: The height limit decides nothing here, since four storeys already fit within eight.Rule: Gross plot ratio fixes the quantum of gross floor area (plot ratio multiplied by site area). Site coverage fixes how much of the site may be built over, and the height control caps the storeys.Source: URA development control parameters, read Sep 2026; /learn/planning-and-development-control-singapore

A. 8,400 sq m

Answer: 8,400 sq m. The maximum gross floor area is 12,000 sq m, and at least 30% of it must be commercial.Working:1. 4,000 sq m at a plot ratio of 3.0 gives 12,000 sq m.2. 30% of 12,000 sq m is 3,600 sq m, the minimum commercial floor area.3. 12,000 sq m less 3,600 sq m leaves 8,400 sq m.Why not the others:• 12,000 sq m: This treats the mix as wholly open and ignores the commercial minimum.• 3,600 sq m: This confuses the commercial floor area with the residential one.• 2,800 sq m: This applies 70% to the site area and forgets the plot ratio.Watch out: The $380 million bid does not enter the arithmetic.Rule: White zoning lets the developer set the mix of permitted uses, within the maximum gross floor area (plot ratio multiplied by site area). Any minimum quantum in the sale conditions must still be met.Source: URA, white site and Government Land Sales conditions, read Sep 2026

B. $6,300,000

Answer: $6,300,000Under the Valuation method, the charge is 70% of the $9,000,000 increase in land value over the development baseline.Working:1. $27,000,000 less $18,000,000 gives an uplift of $9,000,000.2. 70% of $9,000,000 is $6,300,000.Why not the others:• The whole $9,000,000 uplift: Under the Valuation method the uplift itself is not the charge. The charge is 70% of it.• 70% of the permitted value: Applying 70% to the whole permitted value gives $18,900,000, not a charge on the increase.• The $2,700,000 figure: This is the 30% of the uplift the owner keeps, not the charge.Watch out: The 6,000 sq m never enters this arithmetic, because the valuer's figures already reflect it. Under the default Table of Rates method, floor area does count: the charge is the post-chargeable valuation less the pre-chargeable valuation, both worked out from floor area and published rates, with no further 70% applied.Rule: The Land Betterment Charge is a tax on the increase in land value that a chargeable consent produces. For a planning permission the prescribed percentage has been 70% since 1 August 2022; 100% applies only to certain State-title variations. The Table of Rates method applies unless the owner elects the Valuation method or no use group fits. The Singapore Land Authority administers it, and from 1 August 2022 it replaced the Development Charge, Temporary Development Levy and Differential Premium.Source: Land Betterment Charge Act 2021 ss 8, 9, 10, 11 and 49, in force from 1 August 2022; Land Betterment Charge (Table of Rates and Valuation Method) Regulations 2022 reg 3; sso.agc.gov.sg, current version read 6 Oct 2026; SLA, Land Betterment Charge page, updated 15 Sep 2026

C. (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. A shop-to-restaurant change is a material change of use; in a conservation area that is works needing URA's conservation permission, restoration follows the 3R principle, and the conserved floor area can earn the LBC exemption.Why not the others:• (i) and (iii) only: Leaves out (iv). URA exempts the uplift from the proposed use on the conserved floor area from LBC if the conservation works are carried out as approved and completed within 2 years of the conservation permission.• (ii), (iii) and (iv) only: (ii) is false. Gazetting restricts the works, not the right to apply. He applies for conservation permission for the new use, and URA decides it.• (i), (ii) and (iv) only: (ii) is false, and (iii) is true: URA's conservation guidelines rest on the 3R principle of maximum retention, sensitive restoration and careful repair.Watch out: Conservation does not freeze the use, but it moves the approval for a change of use from planning permission to conservation permission.Rule: In a conservation area, works within a conservation area include any development of land, and development includes a material change of use (Planning Act 1998 ss 2, 3(1)). They need conservation permission, not planning permission (s 12(2)). Use follows the zoning, but a change of use in a conservation area still needs conservation permission. URA's Historic Districts guidelines (updated 26 Jun 2026) set the 3R principle, require conservation permission for a change of use, and exempt the uplift on the conserved floor area from LBC if the works are completed as approved within 2 years of the conservation permission.Source: sso.agc.gov.sg, Planning Act 1998 ss 2, 3(1), 12(2), read 3 Oct 2026; ura.gov.sg, Planning Parameters and Restoration Guidelines for Historic Districts, read 3 Oct 2026

A. URA's planning permission for the change of use, as the occupation permit covers building safety, not use

Answer: URA's planning permission for the change of use, as the occupation permit covers building safety, not use. The occupation permit covers building safety, not the use the premises may be put to.Why not the others:• Nothing further; the permit confirms works and use: The TOP certifies only that the building is safe to occupy. It says nothing about use.• A completion certificate from URA allows the use: The CSC is issued by the Commissioner of Building Control, not URA, and certifies that building requirements are met, not use.• SLA confirms the use suits the Master Plan: SLA does not administer the Master Plan; it administers the Land Betterment Charge (in force 1 August 2022).Watch out: The extension is in order, but using the floor as an office meanwhile exposes Mr Koh to enforcement.Rule: A material change of use is development needing URA's planning permission, separately from any building works. Occupation and completion certificates deal with building safety and requirements, not use.Source: Planning Act 1998 s 3(1) (development includes a material change of use) and s 12 (unauthorised development), and Building Control Act 1989 s 12 (occupation of buildings), both sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026; URA, change of use guidance (last updated 18 Aug 2026, read 22 Oct 2026); SLA, Land Betterment Charge, read 3 Oct 2026

B. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. The company commits the section 28 licensing offence, Bala the lesser section 29 registration offence, and neither can recover any reward.(i) True. The company's offence is under section 28: a fine of up to $75,000, imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both.(ii) True. Under s 28(2), a further fine of up to $7,500 for every day the offence continues after conviction may be imposed.(iii) False. Dealing with buyers does not move Bala into section 28. His offence is under section 29, with a ceiling of $25,000, imprisonment of up to 12 months, or both (s 29(3)).(iv) True. Section 29(4) makes no fee, commission or reward for his work recoverable in any action.Watch out: Section 29 also covers acting for a person who should hold a licence but does not, which is Bala's position here.Rule: Carrying on estate agency work without a licence and acting as a salesperson without registration are separate offences with different ceilings. No fee, commission or reward for anything done in either offence is recoverable in any action.Source: Estate Agents Act 2010, s 28 (estate agents to be licensed), including s 28(2) and (3), and s 29 (salespersons to be registered), including s 29(3) and (4); sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026

B. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. The licensed estate agent he will act for submits his application, and there is no stand-alone application to CEA.(i) True. The application is made through, and with the support of, the licensed estate agent he will act for, and that agent submits it.(ii) True. A false statement in an application is an offence punishable by a fine of up to $50,000.(iii) False. There is no stand-alone application to CEA. It goes through Agency X from the start.(iv) True. Being up to date with MediSave contributions is one of the registration criteria.Watch out: He may not take listings until the registration is approved.Rule: A salesperson's registration is applied for through the licensed estate agent he will act for. The applicant must be at least 21, hold 4 GCE O-Level passes, pass the RES examination, be fit and proper and be up to date with MediSave contributions.Source: Estate Agents Act 2010 (EAA), s 34(2) and s 34(7) (sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 1 Oct 2026); CEA, information for aspiring salespersons (cea.gov.sg, read 1 Oct 2026)

Open this question on its own page

B. (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. Only Priya meets every limb, and a non-director cannot hold the post whatever his record.(i) False. His management experience is real, but it does not replace an examination pass within the last 2 years, and 2019 is outside that window.(ii) True. She is a director, has at least 3 years' experience, passed within 2 years and has at least 30 transactions in 3 years.(iii) False. The agency must appoint another KEO within one month, not three, and notify CEA within one week.(iv) True. The post is tied to proprietorship, partnership or directorship, whatever his sales record.Rule: A KEO must be a sole proprietor, director or partner; hold at least 4 GCE O-Level passes or equivalent; have passed the real estate agency examination in the 2 years before applying; have at least 3 years' estate agency experience; and have concluded at least 30 transactions in the last 3 years or have at least 3 years managing a licensed estate agent. A vacancy by death, resignation or revocation must be notified within one week and filled within one month.Source: CEA, Apply for an estate agent licence, last updated 5 March 2026; Estate Agents Act 2010 s 38(5)

B. (i) only

Answer: (i) only. Without an executed prescribed-form agreement, Agency R has no cause of action for its commission or its outgoings.(i) True. An estate agent has a cause of action only if an agreement in the prescribed form with the prescribed particulars was entered into and properly executed, and it was licensed at the time. None was executed here.(ii) False. The advertising spend is barred in the same way. Outgoings are recoverable only if such an agreement expressly provides for them.(iii) False. No prescribed form was used, but no offence follows from that. The exposure is the unrecoverable fee and possible disciplinary action.(iv) False. A WhatsApp exchange is not the prescribed form, however clearly it records the rate.Rule: An estate agent can sue for agreed sums, damages or outgoings only under a properly executed prescribed-form agreement made while licensed. Not using the form is not itself an offence, but it can lead to disciplinary action.Source: Estate Agents Act 2010, s 44(1) and (2) (estate agency agreement required); sso.agc.gov.sg, current at 22 Oct 2026

D. He owes commission, as an exclusive binds him for its term even when he sells himself

Answer: He owes commission, as an exclusive binds him for its term even when he sells himself. The second-month sale falls inside the validity period.Why not the others:• Nothing owed without the agency's introduction: Commission only on the agency's introduction is the non-exclusive position. Under an exclusive, commission is payable during the validity period even if the agency introduced nobody and he completes the sale on his own.• Private sale ends the exclusive at once: A private sale does not end the appointment early.• Commission owed, six months possible by agreement: A six-month period could not have been agreed, whatever Mr Chua wanted, because the cap is three months.Rule: During the validity period of an exclusive agreement, the client must pay the appointed agency commission even if he transacts through another agency or completes on his own. The period may not exceed three months, and once it lapses the client may renew or sign another agreement.Source: cea.gov.sg, estate agency agreements; Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, Forms 5 to 8

Open this question on its own page

A. 'Units here will rise at least 15% within two years,' with no data to back it

Answer: 'Units here will rise at least 15% within two years,' with no data to back it. A price forecast with nothing behind it is an opinion that cannot be justified by reference to verifiable facts.Why not the others:• The asking price looks high, given lower caveats: That is an opinion, but it rests on verifiable transaction records.• The seller's roof claim, attributed and unchecked: Ken attributes it to its source, says he has not verified it and points the buyer to the MCST, so he conveys no false impression.• No forecast, but URA's caveat records: Ken gives facts the buyer can check and declines to predict.Watch out: Framing a forecast as 'my opinion' does not save it. Para 7(3) applies to every opinion, given to the client or anyone else.Rule: Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care para 7(3): any opinion rendered by a salesperson to the client or any other person shall be justifiable by reference to verifiable facts and given with strict professional integrity, objectivity and courtesy. Para 6(4)(b): a salesperson must not overstate or convey a false impression of any relevant information.Source: Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, First Schedule (Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care), paras 6 and 7, sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 3 Oct 2026, read 3 Oct 2026; /learn/code-of-ethics-professional-conduct

A. A potential conflict is deemed to exist, so she discloses it in writing and takes one fee.

Answer: A potential conflict is deemed to exist, because her husband's brother is her brother-in-law. She discloses it in writing and takes one fee.Why not the others:• No disclosure, as she is not buying: The deemed conflict arises where the other party is related to her. She does not have to be the buyer herself.• Keep both fees if the agreement says so: A salesperson may not collect a fee, including a co-broke commission, from more than one person in a transaction, whatever the agreement says.• Brother-in-law is outside the deemed relations: A sibling-in-law is inside the deemed list, so she must disclose in writing as well as give up the second fee.Rule: A potential conflict is deemed where the other party, or that party's salesperson, is related to the salesperson, including a sibling or sibling-in-law; it must be disclosed and the client's informed agreement obtained in writing, or the salesperson stops acting. A salesperson may not collect a fee or commission, including a co-broke commission, from more than one person in a transaction.Source: CEA, Professional Service Manual, version 1.0 of 1 January 2014, para 1.3.2 (deemed relations), para 1.3.5 (disclosure and consent) and para 1.3.6 (one fee)

A. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Basic help with the seller's agreement is allowed, but negotiating for the buyer or taking her fee is not.(i) True. With the seller's agreement, the seller's salesperson may give the buyer basic assistance such as explaining policies and procedures.(ii) False. The seller's agreement is real, but it cannot licence negotiating the price for the buyer. That is estate agency work for her, which is representation.(iii) True. The seller already pays him, so the $3,000 would be a fee from a second person, which is barred.(iv) False. Dual representation is an offence under the Regulations, not only a guideline breach.Rule: A salesperson must not represent both seller and buyer, and must not collect a fee or commission, including a co-broke commission, from more than one person in a transaction. With the seller's agreement, the seller's salesperson may give the buyer basic assistance, but no estate agency work such as price negotiation.Source: Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, regulation 5; CEA, Professional Service Manual, version 1.0 of 1 January 2014, para 1.3.6 and Example 1

B. (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (iii) and (iv) only. Only a written client instruction switches off co-broking, every request needs a response, and 'no co-broke' is barred in listings.(i) False. Her client does prefer no co-broking, but only a written instruction releases her, and a telephone preference is not one.(ii) False. The listing is non-exclusive, but the duty to respond to every co-broking request applies to exclusive and non-exclusive listings alike.(iii) True. The phrase is barred, so it has to come out of her listing.(iv) True. The fee split is agreed between the listing and co-broking salespersons, and confirmed in writing before the transaction closes.Rule: Salespersons must co-broke unless the client instructs otherwise in writing, respond to every request promptly, and confirm the agreed terms in writing before closing. Listings must not say "no co-broke", "no agents" or anything else against the client's best interests.Source: CEA, Practice Guidelines on Conduct of Estate Agents and Real Estate Salespersons towards one another (in force from 24 Mar 2023), paras 20, 21, 25 and 26; CEA, Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising PG 2/2011, version 2.0 dated 10 Dec 2020, para 3.7

D. Repeat the checks: inspect his original pass and passport, match him face to face, and verify the pass

Answer: Repeat the checks: inspect his original pass and passport, match him and verify the pass. Ethan is facilitating the change, so this applies though he signs nothing.Why not the others:• Lodge the tenants' declaration of his status with CEA: A declaration lodged with CEA is not a step the guidelines require.• Nothing, as the checks attach only to signing: The duty is not confined to signing. A change the salesperson agrees to facilitate triggers the same steps.• Inspect his pass alone: Every occupier gets the full checks, not a pass inspection alone, whether or not he signs anything.Watch out: That the new occupier signs nothing changes nothing about the checks.Rule: A salesperson checks every tenant and every occupier: for a foreigner, inspect and copy the original pass, cross-check it against the original passport, match the photograph face to face, and verify the pass with ICA or MOM, or FileSG for a digital Long-Term Pass. If a tenant or occupier changes during the tenancy and the salesperson agrees to facilitate it, the same steps are run on the new person.Source: CEA Practice Guidelines on Due Diligence Checks under the Women's Charter 1961 and Immigration Act 1959, in force from 24 March 2023; /learn/leasing-private-residential-property

Open this question on its own page

D. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) onlyOnly a suspension or revocation is stayed by an appeal, and the Act makes the Appeals Board's decision final.Why not the others:• (i), (ii) and (iii) only: (ii) is false. Lodging an appeal does not suspend a decision; the stay applies only to an order revoking or suspending a licence or registration.• (iii) and (iv) only: (iv) is false, since the Act makes the Appeals Board's decision final and gives no further appeal, and the true (i) is left out.• (i), (iii) and (iv) only: It keeps the false (iv).Watch out: The appeal goes to the Appeals Board, which is separate from CEA. It does not go back to CEA, and the Act gives no further appeal to the High Court.Rule: Estate Agents Act 2010 s 59: a person aggrieved by a decision of the Council or a Disciplinary Committee may appeal to the Appeals Board (s 59(1)). Lodging an appeal does not suspend the decision (s 59(3)), except that an order revoking or suspending a licence or registration is stayed once due notice of appeal is given, unless the Appeals Board orders otherwise on the Council's application (s 59(4)). The Board may confirm, set aside or modify the decision, and its decision is final (s 59(5)).Source: Estate Agents Act 2010 s 59, sso.agc.gov.sg, current version at 3 Oct 2026, read 3 Oct 2026; /learn/code-of-ethics-professional-conduct

C. $15,000

Answer: $15,000. For AML breaches committed on or after 1 July 2025 the Letter of Censure cap is $5,000 per breach, and there are three breaches.Working:1. Three transactions without customer due diligence in August 2026 = three breaches after 1 July 2025.2. Cap: 3 x $5,000 = $15,000.Why not the others:• $5,000: This is the per-case cap that still governs other breaches, not AML breaches.• $100,000: This is a Disciplinary Committee's ceiling for a salesperson, but CEA did not refer Farid to a Committee.• $300,000: This applies the Committee ceiling per breach, but there was no referral to a Committee.Rule: Under a Letter of Censure, CEA may impose up to $5,000 per case for a less serious breach. For anti-money laundering, proliferation financing or terrorism financing breaches committed on or after 1 July 2025, the cap is $5,000 per breach.Source: CEA, Letter of censure framework (operative from 30 July 2021; cea.gov.sg, last updated 15 Aug 2025); Anti-Money Laundering and Other Matters (Estate Agents and Developers) Act 2025

B. Andre does not proceed with the purchase, and considers whether to file a report

Answer: Andre does not proceed, and considers whether to file a report. Without identity or a beneficial owner there is nothing to verify, so the option cannot be signed.Why not the others:• Proceed, and finish the checks before completion: Finishing the checks later reverses the timing rule.• Proceed, as the seller's salesperson checks the buyer: The seller's salesperson checks only an unrepresented party, and the buyer here has Andre.• Stop, and tell the buyer he is reported: Telling the buyer about a report is tipping off under the CDSA.Rule: Where customer due diligence cannot be completed, the salesperson must not carry out the transaction and should end the business relationship. He must also consider whether that failure gives reasonable grounds to suspect, in which case a Suspicious Transaction Report is filed.Source: Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering, Proliferation Financing and Terrorism Financing) Regulations 2021, as amended with effect from 1 July 2025; CEA, Guide on the PMLPFTF Regulations (revised 30 June 2025); CDSA

Open this question on its own page

A. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. The seller's side checks an unrepresented buyer, and incomplete checks stop the sale.(i) True. The buyer has no salesperson, so unrepresented counterparty due diligence on him falls to Nadia and her agency.(ii) False. Nadia herself must file a report on her suspicion; the agency's duty to file arises once she tells a designated officer and she has not already filed. She lodges it through her agency's SONAR account.(iii) True. Where the checks on the unrepresented buyer cannot be completed, Nadia and her agency must not proceed with the transaction.(iv) False. Telling him a report is being made is tipping off, an offence with a fine of up to $250,000, imprisonment of up to 3 years, or both.Rule: Where the checks on an unrepresented party cannot be completed, the other side's agent must not proceed, should consider filing a suspicious transaction report, and keeps the records for at least 5 years. A salesperson with a suspicion must file the report herself; if she discloses it to a designated officer of her estate agent, the agent must file unless she already has.Source: CEA, Guide on the Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering, Proliferation Financing and Terrorism Financing) Regulations 2021, version of 30 June 2025, section 9, para 9.6.1 and para 8.5.1; Estate Agents (PMLPFTF) Regulations 2021 regs 12G(4), 12G(5) and 12H(2), as amended wef 1 July 2025; Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992

A. Telling the co-broking salesperson that the buyer's funds were reported, so his client can pull out early

Answer: Telling the co-broking salesperson that the buyer's funds were reported, so his client can pull out early. News of the report passed to the other side is likely to prejudice any investigation that follows, which is the tipping-off offence.Why not the others:• Giving her grounds to her compliance officer: Disclosure to a designated officer of her agency is the step reg 11(4A) builds on, not tipping off.• Telling the seller she can no longer act: It discloses nothing about the buyer or the report.• Handing her file to a Commercial Affairs Officer: Complying with the investigating officer cannot prejudice his own investigation.Watch out: The test is whether a disclosure is likely to prejudice an investigation, not whether it breaks a confidence.Rule: CDSA s 57 makes it an offence to disclose information likely to prejudice an investigation, or information about an STR that might prejudice a later investigation; the penalty is a fine of up to $250,000, up to 3 years' jail, or both (CEA Guide para 8.5.1). Under reg 11(4) of the Estate Agents (PMLPFTF) Regulations 2021 (as amended wef 1 Jul 2025), a salesperson with reason to suspect ML, PF or TF must herself file a Suspicious Transaction Report. Under reg 11(4A), once she discloses the suspicion to a designated officer of her agency, the agency must file unless she already has. In practice she discloses to her agency, which files on STRO's SONAR platform through its CorpPass account (CEA Guide on the PMLPFTF Regulations, version of 30 Jun 2025, para 8.4.1).Source: CEA, Estate Agents (PMLPFTF) Regulations 2021, informal consolidation in force from 1 Jul 2025, reg 11; CEA, Guide on the PMLPFTF Regulations 2021 (30 Jun 2025), paras 8.2.1, 8.4.1 and 8.5.1 (cea.gov.sg, read 3 Oct 2026)

D. (ii) only

Answer: (ii) only. Only the 9-year shop lease falls outside the rental-transaction relief, so its low-risk rating does not help.(i) False. A 2-year tenancy to a company, assessed and documented as low risk, is a rental transaction relieved of the entity measures.(ii) True. A 9-year term is longer than 7 years, so it is not a rental transaction at all and its low-risk rating gives no relief.(iii) False. An HDB residential letting is relieved of the due diligence measures altogether.(iv) False. Once Ravi verifies the tenant is a statutory board, the entity measures need not be performed.Watch out: The statutory-board exception is the one candidates tend to forget.Rule: A tenancy of up to 7 years is a rental transaction, and if it is not an HDB residential letting and is documented as low risk, the entity and beneficial-owner measures may be left out. HDB residential lettings are relieved of due diligence altogether, and the entity measures fall away once a statutory-board counterparty is verified.Source: Estate Agents (PMLPFTF) Regulations 2021 regs 5(6), 7, 12C(2) and 12E, as amended with effect from 1 July 2025

D. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. The HDB rental exemption switches off all due diligence checks, but not the duty to report a suspicion.(i) True. From 1 July 2025 customer due diligence is not required for HDB residential rentals, whole-flat and room rentals alike, so the exemption covers this letting.(ii) False. The tenant is unrepresented, but unrepresented counterparty due diligence carries the same HDB rental exception.(iii) False. He is a foreign minister's family, but with no due diligence required there is no enhanced due diligence to carry out.(iv) True. The exemption removes the checks, not the reporting duty, which applies to any transaction.Rule: HDB residential rentals need no customer or counterparty due diligence. A suspicion of money laundering, proliferation financing or terrorism financing must still be reported to the Suspicious Transaction Reporting Office through SONAR, by the salesperson or, if she reports to her estate agent, by the agency.Source: CEA, Guide on the Estate Agents (Prevention of Money Laundering, Proliferation Financing and Terrorism Financing) Regulations 2021, version of 30 June 2025, paras 5.1.1 and 9.2.1; CEA, amended PMLPFTF Regulations, in force 1 July 2025

B. (i) and (iv) only

Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Their MOP runs to January 2027, which blocks both a whole-flat letting and a private purchase, and the flat counts for ABSD.(i) True. The five-year MOP counts from key collection. Keys in January 2022 put the MOP end at January 2027.(ii) False. Living in the flat does not lift the bar. During the MOP owners may not buy private residential property, local or overseas.(iii) False. ABSD counts every residential property, HDB flats included. The condominium would be their second, so 20% applies.(iv) True. After the MOP, keeping the flat makes the condominium their second residential property, at the citizen rate of 20%.Watch out: The HDB flat counts for ABSD, so the condominium is not their first residential property.Rule: During the five-year MOP, counted from key collection, owners may neither rent out the whole flat nor buy private residential property. ABSD counts every residential property, HDB flats included.Source: HDB, MOP rule for flats bought from 30 Aug 2010; IRAS, 20% ABSD for a citizen's second residential property from 27 Apr 2023; /learn/hdb-minimum-occupation-period-mop; /learn/stamp-duties-bsd-absd-ssd

Open this question on its own page

B. (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. Only a widowed buyer, or a parent buying with a child in custody, escapes the age-35 rule.(i) False. Aisha is divorced and childless, so she waits until 35.(ii) True. Ben is widowed, so the minimum age of 21 applies.(iii) False. A never-married single buying alone who is not an orphan waits until 35. With both parents alive, the orphan rule does not help.(iv) True. Devi buys with her son under her custody, care and control, so they form a family nucleus and she needs only to be 21.Watch out: It is the child, not the divorce, that brings the age down.Rule: Under the Single Singapore Citizen Scheme a resale buyer has to be at least 35 if unmarried or divorced, and at least 21 if widowed or an orphan. A widowed or divorced person buying with children under legal custody, care and control forms a family nucleus and needs only to be 21.Source: hdb.gov.sg, Singles eligibility, read 1 October 2026; hdb.gov.sg, Couples and Families eligibility, read 1 October 2026

A. (i), (ii) and (iii)

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iii). The test runs on the buyer's group, and a same-group sale leaves the mix unchanged.(i) True. The test is run on the buyer's group, and the Chinese limits have room in both the block and the neighbourhood.(ii) True. Same reason. The full Malay limit is not the limit a sale to an Indian household is tested against.(iii) True. A Malay citizen household buying from a Malay citizen seller changes nothing in the mix, so the same-group rule lets it through.Watch out: Thinking a full limit for the seller's group freezes the flat leads salespersons to underprice.Rule: A resale may proceed if, after the purchase, the buyer's ethnic group stays within the block and neighbourhood limits. It may also proceed if buyer and seller share ethnic group and household citizenship, because the proportions do not change.Source: hdb.gov.sg, EIP and SPR Quota, read 1 October 2026

C. (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. Vacant possession fails where people remain, a legal impediment exists, or chattels substantially interfere; trifles and paperwork do not breach it.(i) True. Furniture blocking two of four bedrooms is a substantial interference with a substantial part of the house.(ii) False. A few empty tins in a storeroom are trivial and do not breach the term.(iii) True. The house is not empty of people while the son remains.(iv) True. A tenant the buyer did not agree to take is a person in possession and a legal impediment.(v) False. A name on a letterbox or an account does not affect possession, though the account should be closed.Rule: Vacant possession means the property is empty of people, free of chattels that substantially interfere with the enjoyment of a substantial part of it, and free of any legal impediment to the buyer's immediate and exclusive possession.Source: Cumberland Consolidated Holdings Ltd v Ireland, English Court of Appeal, 1946 (common-law test); /learn/option-to-purchase-singapore

B. The buyer reimburses the seller $2,182.86: $1,990.00 of tax and $192.86 of maintenance

Answer: The buyer reimburses the seller $2,182.86: $1,990.00 of tax and $192.86 of maintenance. The seller paid both in advance, so the buyer refunds the part after completion.Working:1. 2026 property tax of $3,650 = $10 a day.2. Buyer's 199 days, 16 June to 31 December 2026: $1,990.00.3. Maintenance of $1,170 over a 91-day quarter = $12.857 a day.4. Buyer's 15 days, 16 to 30 June: $192.86.5. $1,990.00 + $192.86 = $2,182.86.Why not the others:• Buyer reimburses the whole $4,820: This ignores the seller's own period, which runs to completion day.• Seller reimburses buyer $2,637.14: $2,637.14 is the seller's share, presented as a payment the wrong way.• Nothing, as IRAS and MCST re-bill: IRAS does not apportion property tax between seller and buyer, and the seller has already paid both bills, so the parties adjust both items in the completion account.Rule: Property tax, maintenance contributions and similar outgoings are apportioned at the completion date. The buyer reimburses the seller for the part of each period after completion.Source: Law Society of Singapore, Conditions of Sale 2020 (launched 24 Nov 2020), Conditions 6.1, 6.2 and 7.1.1; IRAS, Selling my property, read 22 Oct 2026 (IRAS does not apportion property tax between the parties)

D. All of the above

Answer: All of the above. Each statement restates a condition or step of the remission, so she can recover $44,550.(i) True. Buyer's Stamp Duty in excess of $50 is remitted on a rescinded agreement, so the first $50 is kept.(ii) True. The application must be made within six months from the date of rescission.(iii) True. No remission where the purchaser rescinded to help the vendor dispose of the property to another person.(iv) True. Applicants keep the original Option to Purchase and evidence of the cancellation, to produce when IRAS asks.Watch out: The remission also needs the agreement to have been rescinded on or after 18 February 2005; that is met here.Rule: Buyer's Stamp Duty, Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty and Seller's Stamp Duty above $50 are remitted on an aborted sale if the purchaser did not rescind to facilitate the vendor's sale to someone else and applies in time. The applicant must keep the documents as evidence.Source: Stamp Duties (Aborted Sale and Purchase Agreements) (Remission) Rules; IRAS, Aborted Sale and Purchase Agreements (read 1 Oct 2026)

Open this question on its own page

B. $240

Answer: $240. On the current owner-occupier scale the first $12,000 is at 0% and the next $6,000 at 4%.Working:1. $12,000 at 0% is nil.2. $6,000 at 4% is $240.Why not the others:• The 2024 owner-occupier scale: $400 is the answer on the 2024 scale, whose 0% band stopped at $8,000.• 4% on the whole Annual Value: $720 charges 4% on the whole value. The first $12,000 is at 0%.• The non-owner-occupier scale: $2,160 is the non-owner-occupier figure, at 12% on the first $30,000. He lives there.Watch out: The price and the market rent play no part once the Annual Value is fixed.Rule: The owner-occupier scale is 0% on the first $12,000 of Annual Value, 4% on the next $28,000, 6% on the next $10,000 and upwards to 32% above $140,000. The non-owner-occupier scale starts at 12% on the first $30,000.Source: Owner-occupier scale from 1 January 2025; non-owner-occupier scale unchanged since 1 January 2024; IRAS, Lower Property Tax Rates for Owner-Occupied Residential Properties (read 1 Oct 2026)

Open this question on its own page

D. $338,000

Answer: $338,000. The loan is repaid first, then the CPF used plus accrued interest is refunded to her CPF Ordinary Account.Working:1. CPF refund: $170,000 + $32,000 = $202,000.2. After the loan: $620,000 − $80,000 = $540,000.3. Cash: $540,000 − $202,000 = $338,000.Why not the others:• $370,000: Leaves the $32,000 accrued interest out of the refund.• $323,000: Works from the valuation, but the buyer pays the sale price, not the valuation.• $540,000: Deducts only the loan and skips the CPF refund.Watch out: The refund goes back into her own CPF Ordinary Account, not to HDB, but it still does not reach her as cash.Rule: On a sale the outstanding housing loan is repaid first. The CPF savings used for the flat are refunded to the owner's CPF account with accrued interest, so the cash received is less than the headline price.Source: CPF Board, refund of CPF used for housing; /learn/cpf-housing-grants-and-hdb-resale, current at 1 Oct 2026

Open this question on its own page

C. (i), (ii) and (iv) only

Answer: (i), (ii) and (iv) only. His lease falls short of age 95 but leaves at least 20 years, so both CPF and HDB loan are pro-rated.(i) True. The lease does not cover him to age 95, so CPF use is pro-rated.(ii) True. The HDB loan is pro-rated in the same way as CPF use.(iii) False. The floor is 20 years remaining, not 40.(iv) True. (39 - 20) / (41 - 20) = 19 / 21, about 90%.Watch out: The cut-off for any CPF use is 20 years of lease, not 40.Rule: Full CPF use up to the Valuation Limit needs the lease to cover the youngest buyer to age 95. Otherwise, with at least 20 years left, CPF and HDB loan are pro-rated: (remaining lease - 20) / (years until the youngest buyer is 95 - 20); below 20 years no CPF may be used.Source: CPF Board and HDB, since 10 May 2019; /learn/freehold-vs-leasehold-singapore

Open this question on its own page

D. Stating his name and registration number, his agency's name and licence number, and his registered contact number

Answer: Stating his name and registration number, his agency's name and licence number, and his registered contact number. That is exactly what an advertisement must contain.Why not the others:• Quoting a nearby unit's transacted price: Transaction information, including price, needs the written consent of all parties to that transaction.• Republishing a rival's portal listing: A copied advertisement is not allowed, as the copier has no owner's consent to advertise.• Leaving a withdrawn unit online: An advertisement must be removed once the property is unavailable. Leaving it up is in substance a dummy advertisement, however harmless it looks.Rule: An advertisement must carry the salesperson's name, registration number and registered contact number, and the agency's name and licence number. It must not quote other transactions without all parties' consent, copy another's listing, or stay up once the property is unavailable.Source: CEA, Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising PG 2/2011, version 2.0 dated 10 Dec 2020; Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (First Schedule to the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010, in force 15 Nov 2010, current at 1 Oct 2026, sso.agc.gov.sg), para 12

C. (i) and (iii) only

Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Ravi works through Joyce, never round her, whether directly or through a colleague.(i) True. The owner's contact details, and any approach to him, need Joyce's consent.(ii) False. Using a colleague bypasses Joyce just as effectively, and the guidelines bar it expressly.(iii) True. He learned of the unit through her, so he works with her to close.(iv) False. The fee has been agreed, but a settled fee is a separate obligation, not a licence to deal with the owner.Rule: A co-broking salesperson must not request the listing salesperson's client's contact details, or approach that client, without her consent, nor get another salesperson to do it. Where he learned of the property through her, he works with her to close, and co-broking terms are confirmed in writing before closing.Source: CEA, Practice Guidelines on Conduct of Estate Agents and Real Estate Salespersons towards one another (in force from 24 Mar 2023)

B. (ii), (iii) and (iv) only

Answer: (ii), (iii) and (iv) only. HDB's 6-month minimum defeats the four-month term, while the occupancy cap, quota and approval period all work in her favour.(i) False. Three months is URA's rule for private homes. HDB's minimum is 6 months, so four months falls short.(ii) True. Her family of three and the four tenants make seven in all, within the cap of 8 for a 4-room flat.(iii) True. The Non-Citizen Quota applies to whole-flat rentals only, so it does not reach a bedroom rental.(iv) True. The cap turns on nationality, not the type of pass: 3 years where all tenants are Singaporeans or Malaysians, and 2 years only if one is a non-Malaysian non-citizen.Rule: Bedrooms may be rented only from a 3-room or bigger flat, only HDB-built bedrooms count, and HDB must approve before the tenancy starts, for at least 6 months. A 4-room or bigger flat may hold 8 occupants, owners included, for rental periods ending on or before 31 December 2028.Source: HDB, renting out your flat or bedrooms, updated 4 August 2026; /learn/renting-out-hdb-flats-bedrooms

D. All of the above

Answer: All of the above. Both loans now stop at 75% of the price, but only the bank loan needs 5% in cash.(i) True. 75% of $660,000 is $495,000 on either loan, as HDB's limit fell from 80% to 75%.(ii) True. On an HDB loan the 25% balance, $165,000, may come from CPF, cash or both, so wholly from CPF is allowed.(iii) True. A first bank loan at 75% needs at least 5% of the price in cash: 5% of $660,000 is $33,000.(iv) True. Under the old 80% limit, HDB could have lent $528,000.Watch out: The loan ceilings now match; the cash rule does not.Rule: An HDB loan and a first bank loan on a flat are both capped at 75%, but only the HDB loan's balance may be paid wholly from CPF. A bank loan on a flat keeps the 75% tier while the tenure is 25 years or less and the loan ends by age 65.Source: HDB, loan-to-value limit lowered from 80% to 75% for HFE letter applications received on or after 20 Aug 2024 (measures announced 19 Aug 2024); MAS, loan tenure and loan-to-value limits, for loans where the Option to Purchase was granted on or after 6 Jul 2018

B. The renewal fails, since notice about ten weeks before expiry misses a condition of the option

Answer: The renewal fails, since notice about ten weeks before expiry misses a condition of the option. Notice on 20 April 2027 is about ten weeks before the 30 June 2027 expiry, short of the three months the option requires.Why not the others:• Stands, the notice period being directory: Time is of the essence for the exercise period, so short notice is ineffective, however small the shortfall and whatever the landlord's loss.• Stands, with damages for short notice: An option's conditions are construed strictly. A notice outside the period exercises nothing, so no further term arises.• Fails on his 2026 late payments: The rent condition was met because he owed nothing on 20 April. Lateness in 2026 that has since been cured does not count.Watch out: The renewal fails on the notice, not on the rent.Rule: An option to renew is a conditional offer whose conditions are construed strictly, and time is of the essence for the exercise period. A condition that rent be paid 'as at the date of the notice' is met if nothing is outstanding on that date.Source: /learn/commercial-industrial-leasing-singapore