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.
Case study — A buyer completes the purchase of a registered property and is entered on the land register as proprietor. Months later, a defect in an earlier transfer in the chain of title comes to light, but the buyer had no knowledge of it. Evaluate the statements: (i) Under the Torrens (Land Titles Act) system, the register is generally conclusive as to title (ii) A bona fide registered proprietor obtains an indefeasible title, subject to statutory exceptions (iii) Fraud by or with the knowledge of the proprietor is a recognised exception to indefeasibility (iv) An innocent buyer's registered title is automatically void because of the earlier defect Which statements are CORRECT?
Why: (iv) is the trap — indefeasibility protects the innocent registered proprietor precisely against earlier defects, subject only to statutory exceptions such as the proprietor's own fraud. (i)–(iii) state the Torrens system correctly.
Case study — Salesperson Tan is engaged by a seller to market a private resale apartment. An unrepresented buyer approaches Tan directly and asks Tan to ‘handle everything’ for them as well, offering to pay Tan a separate commission. Tan is tempted — it would mean earning commission from both sides of the same transaction, and both parties appear happy with the arrangement. Evaluate the statements: (i) Dual representation — acting for both the seller and the buyer in the same transaction — is generally not permitted, due to the inherent conflict of interest (ii) The conflict would be cured if Tan simply agrees a price that is fair to both parties (iii) Co-broking (two agents from different agencies each representing one side) is a different arrangement and is permitted with proper disclosure (iv) Collecting commission from both the seller and the buyer in the same deal is a cross-representation concern Which statements are CORRECT?
Why: (ii) is the trap — a fair price does not cure a prohibited conflict; the objection is structural, not about the number. (i), (iii) and (iv) are correct: dual representation in one transaction is not permitted, co-broking is a different (permitted) arrangement, and being paid by both sides is a cross-representation problem.
These are just a taste. Hard Mode has hundreds of exam-grade case studies, plus timed mock papers weighted toward the toughest questions — and 2,000+ 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.