These are real Hard Modequestions from RESPrep — the long, Section B-style case studies that actually test how concepts combine in the Singapore RES exam (ABSD, SSD, MOP, financing, agency law and more). Answers and worked explanations are shown. No sign-up needed — see the difficulty for yourself.
A seller signs an exclusive estate agency agreement for eight weeks, then finds his own buyer in week five. Which is/are correct? (i) Commission may still be payable to the appointed agency, depending on the words of the agreement, even though the seller found the buyer. (ii) The appointment should be on CEA's prescribed form, which sets out the commission and the parties' obligations, and be signed before marketing. (iii) An open appointment, by contrast, lets the seller instruct several agencies and pay only the one whose work produces the buyer. (iv) Exclusive means the seller may appoint several agencies at once, provided each knows of the others.
Why: Issue: what an exclusive appointment commits the seller to. Rule: exclusivity means one agency for the period, and the prescribed agreement commonly makes commission payable on any sale concluded during it, however the buyer is found; the prescribed form is signed before marketing and states the fee. An open appointment is the opposite arrangement. Application: (iv) describes an open listing and mislabels it. Conclusion: (i), (ii) and (iii) are correct.
A fraudster forges a transfer of Mdm Koh's house to himself and is registered as proprietor on 3 March 2026. On 20 April 2026 he sells to Mr Teo, who pays market value, knows nothing of the fraud, and is registered on 6 May 2026. Which is/are correct? (i) While the fraudster was still the registered proprietor, the court could have ordered the register rectified against him, the fraud exception reaching a proprietor who is party to the fraud. (ii) Once the innocent purchaser is registered, his estate is paramount, and the register cannot be rectified against him on the strength of the earlier forgery alone. (iii) The forged transfer was void, so nothing passed down the chain and Mdm Koh may recover the house from the purchaser. (iv) If she cannot recover her loss from the fraudster, the assurance fund under the Land Titles Act is the route by which the system answers for it.
These are just a taste. Hard Mode has hundreds of exam-grade case studies, plus timed mock papers weighted toward the toughest questions — and 2,600+ questions across every CEA syllabus topic.
Get each day's lesson free — one RES topic + the trap, every day on Telegram.
Join @resprepsg →Original study material mapped to the public CEA RES syllabus. Verify any rate-based figures against current IRAS/CPF/MAS rules before relying on them.
Why: Under title by registration the estate of the registered proprietor is paramount, subject to the exceptions in section 46 of the Land Titles Act, of which fraud is one; the fraud that defeats a proprietor is fraud by him or brought home to him, not fraud further back in the chain. So the window for attacking the register closes when the innocent purchaser for value is registered: while the fraudster was on the register the court could have ordered rectification under section 160, but that power is not exercised so as to disturb a purchaser in good faith for value. The deeds-system instinct, that a void instrument passes nothing down the chain, is the trap, and it is the wrong system. What remains for the dispossessed owner is a claim against the fraudster and, failing that, the assurance fund in Part 17 of the Act. Takeaway: timing decides who bears a forgery.
Mr Rahim is a Singapore Citizen and Mrs Rahim a Singapore Permanent Resident. They jointly own one condominium. On 10 May 2026 they jointly buy an uncompleted condominium as their matrimonial home and want the married couple remission. Which is/are correct? (i) The Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty is paid first and refunded afterwards; it is not waived at the point of purchase. (ii) Because the second property was uncompleted, the 6-month window runs from the issue of the Temporary Occupation Permit or the Certificate of Statutory Completion, whichever is earlier. (iii) The refund must be applied for within 6 months after the date of sale of the first property. (iv) They may buy a further residential property in the meantime without affecting the refund.
Why: The married couple remission works as a refund, not an upfront waiver: the couple must include a Singapore Citizen spouse, must buy the second property in both their names, and must pay the duty before claiming it back. Where the second property was completed at purchase, the first home must be sold within 6 months of that purchase; where it was uncompleted, the 6 months run from the issue of the Temporary Occupation Permit or the Certificate of Statutory Completion, whichever is earlier, and the refund is then claimed within 6 months after the sale (IRAS, remission of ABSD for a married couple, as at Sep 2026). Buying another residential property in the meantime breaks a condition, which is why the last statement fails. IRAS states that the timeline will not be extended, so a week's delay costs the whole remission.
A salesperson is marketing one listing across four channels on the same day: a newspaper classified advertisement, a bulk SMS to a list of past enquirers, a property portal listing and a printed flyer for the letterboxes in the block. Which is/are correct? (i) The newspaper classified may carry only his CEA-registered name, in full or abbreviated, and his CEA-registered contact number; the registration and licence numbers need not appear. (ii) The SMS must carry his salesperson registration number and the estate agent's licence number, because an electronic message is an online advertisement. (iii) The portal listing and the flyer must each carry his registered name, his salesperson registration number, the estate agent's name, the estate agent's licence number and his CEA-registered contact number. (iv) The SMS must give a mobile number to which the recipient may text an unsubscribe request, and it must not be sent between 10.00 pm and 9.00 am.
Why: The five particulars listed in (iii) are required for flyers, pamphlets, banners and online advertising, and the advertisement must spell out the words identifying the licence and registration numbers (CEA, Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising PG 2/2011, version 2.0 of 10 Dec 2020). Newspaper classified advertisements are the narrow carve-out: name and CEA-registered contact number only. SMS advertising is treated the same way as a classified advertisement, so the licence and registration numbers need not be stated, which is what makes the second statement wrong even though an SMS is electronic. The same guidelines require an unsubscribe number in every SMS advertisement and bar SMS advertising and cold-calling between 10.00 pm and 9.00 am. The medium fixes the particulars, so check the channel before the wording.
A sale and purchase agreement between a seller and a buyer contains a clause allowing the seller's mother to live in the annexe for three years after completion, and states in terms that she may enforce that clause. A year later the buyer asks her to leave. In an unrelated contract, a term confers a benefit on a named contractor but says nothing about enforcement, and a separate clause lets the parties vary any term without the consent of anyone else. Which is/are correct? (i) The mother may sue in her own name under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act, because the agreement expressly provides that she may. (ii) In the second contract, an express liberty to vary without the third party's consent is an indication that the parties did not intend the benefit to be enforceable by him. (iii) Paying part of the purchase price would by itself make a person a party to the contract and entitle him to sue on it. (iv) Without the Act, the mother would have no claim at common law, because only a party to a contract may enforce it.
Why: The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 2001 lets a third party enforce a term in two situations: where the contract expressly says he may, and where the term purports to confer a benefit on him unless, on a proper construction, the parties did not intend it to be enforceable by him. A clause allowing the parties to vary or cancel terms without the third party's consent points away from that intention, which is why the second contract is weaker than the first even though a benefit is conferred. At common law the privity rule confines enforcement to the parties, and handing over money does not turn a stranger into a party. Takeaway: the Act rescues a third party only where the contract says so or means it.
A listing salesperson holds a non-exclusive appointment over a flat. Another agency's salesperson asks to co-broke. She would rather find her own buyer and keep the whole fee, and her portal listing already carries the line "no co-broke". Consider: (i) she must co-operate and agree to co-broke unless her client has specifically instructed against it in writing (ii) the line in her listing is one CEA's advertising guidelines bar her from using (iii) if she does co-broke, the terms and the co-brokerage fee must be confirmed in writing between the salespersons before the transaction closes (iv) she may decline any request to co-broke because the appointment is non-exclusive Which statements are correct?
Why: The duty to co-broke is positive, not optional: a salesperson must co-operate and agree to co-broke with all others unless specifically instructed against it in writing by the client, must respond to co-broking requests in a timely way, and must confirm the terms and the co-brokerage fee in writing before the transaction closes (Practice Guidelines on Conduct of Estate Agents and Real Estate Salespersons towards one another, in force from 24 March 2023). Phrases such as "no co-broke", "already co-broke" and "no agents" are barred from advertisements because they are not in the client's interests (Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising PG 2/2011, version 2.0 dated 10 December 2020). Whether the listing is exclusive or non-exclusive makes no difference, which is the tempting statement. Takeaway: only the client, in writing, can switch co-broking off.
Arun and Kavya own a house as joint tenants. Arun transfers his interest to a third party and the transfer is registered. Which is/are correct? (i) A joint tenancy carries the right of survivorship, so on a joint tenant's death his interest accrues to the survivor and cannot pass by will. (ii) A joint tenancy needs only unity of possession, the other three unities being relevant to a tenancy in common. (iii) After a registered transfer the right of survivorship still operates, now between Kavya and the third party. (iv) The registered transfer severs the joint tenancy, so Kavya and the third party hold as tenants in common with no survivorship between them.
Why: Issue: what a registered dealing does to a joint tenancy. Rule: a joint tenancy requires all four unities — possession, interest, title and time — and carries survivorship; a joint tenant who transfers his interest and registers the transfer severs it, leaving a tenancy in common in which each share passes under its owner's will. Where severance is instead by unilateral declaration, section 53(5) of the Land Titles Act requires the instrument to be executed, served and registered. Application: (ii) strips the unities and (iii) keeps survivorship alive after severance. Conclusion: (i) and (iv) are correct.
A seller engages Agency S to market his flat. The same seller is buying a replacement unit through Agency B, which has already completed its customer due diligence on him. Agency S would rather not repeat the work. Consider: (i) Agency S may rely on Agency B for the due diligence measures if it is satisfied that Agency B is willing and able to produce the documents it obtained, without delay, on request (ii) once it decides to rely on Agency B, Agency S must obtain those documents from Agency B without delay (iii) the reliance moves responsibility for the adequacy of the measures onto Agency B (iv) Agency S may also rely on Agency B to carry out the ongoing monitoring of the client Which statements are correct?
Why: Reliance is permitted, but only on another licensed estate agent, only for the due diligence measures, and only where the relying agent is satisfied the documents will be produced without delay and actually obtains them once it decides to rely (Estate Agents (PMLPFTF) Regulations 2021 reg 8, in force from 1 July 2025). Two limits defeat the other statements: ongoing monitoring is expressly excluded from what may be relied on, and the relying agent remains responsible for compliance with the obligation to perform the measures. The tempting statement is the transfer of responsibility, because that is how outsourcing usually works in commercial life and not how it works here. Takeaway: borrow the paperwork, keep the responsibility, and do the monitoring yourself.
