Free RES Exam Sample Questions & Case Studies

A CEA inspection in 2026 finds three salespersons at Summit Realty at fault. Jia skipped customer due diligence on two sales in 2026. After the agency filed a suspicious transaction report on Ken's buyer, Ken told the buyer 'a report has gone in about you'. Leon had reasonable grounds to suspect fraud proceeds but filed no report. (i) Since Jia's breaches were committed in 2026, a Letter of Censure can impose up to $5,000 for each of them. (ii) Ken's remark to his buyer can be prosecuted under the CDSA as tipping-off, with up to 3 years' jail. (iii) Since Leon's failure to report also breaches Part 4A, it is dealt with by CEA instead of the criminal courts. (iv) Had Jia's breaches been committed in March 2025, a Letter of Censure could still impose $5,000 for each. Which of the statements is/are correct?

• A (i) and (iii) only
• B (i), (ii) and (iv) only
• C (iii) and (iv) only
• D (i) and (ii) only✓ correct

Why: Answer: (i) and (ii) only. The kind of lapse decides the route, and the date of a due diligence breach decides the disciplinary cap.(i) True. Part 4A due diligence breaches are disciplinary (EAA s 44E), and for AML breaches committed on or after 1 Jul 2025 the Letter of Censure cap is $5,000 for each contravention (s 49(6)(a)(iii)).(ii) True. CDSA s 57(2): knowing a disclosure has been made, disclosing anything likely to prejudice an investigation that might follow; up to $250,000, 3 years' jail or both.(iii) False. The inference fails: a failure to report is a CDSA offence (s 45(3), up to $250,000, 3 years or both) as well as a disciplinary matter under EAA ss 44D–44E; one does not displace the other.(iv) False. CEA applies the per-breach cap only to breaches committed on or after 1 Jul 2025; earlier breaches stay under the $5,000-per-case cap.Rule: Consequences follow the type of lapse: due diligence breaches are disciplinary (per-contravention caps for breaches from 1 Jul 2025); failing to report and tipping-off are CDSA offences, and failing to report is also disciplinary.Source: EAA ss 44D, 44E, 49(6): Estate Agents Act 2010 (2020 Rev Ed), as amended by Act 15 of 2025 wef 1 Jul 2025, sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/EAA2010, read 11 Oct 2026; CDSA ss 45(3), 57(2): Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act 1992 (2020 Rev Ed), SSO consolidation in force from 17 Aug 2026, sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CDTOSCCBA1992, read 11 Oct 2026; LOC framework: CEA 'Letter of censure framework' page (last updated 15 Aug 2025), cea.gov.sg/regulatory-matters/letter-of-censure-framework, read 11 Oct 2026

Mdm Rosnah owns an HDB flat and asks salesperson Yusof to find a tenant for the whole flat by next week. She says HDB's requirements for renting out a flat are 'just paperwork' she will sort out after the tenant moves in. Yusof has never handled an HDB rental and does not know what those requirements are. (i) Yusof may act on the flat only if he is fully conversant with HDB's rules on renting out flats and complies with them. (ii) Since Mdm Rosnah owns the flat, Yusof may rely on her account of what HDB requires before a tenant moves in. (iii) Since any breach of HDB's rules would be the owner's, Yusof would face no disciplinary risk in facilitating one. (iv) Yusof must take all reasonable precautions so that the letting does not lead anyone, including Mdm Rosnah, to infringe the law. Which of the following statements is/are correct?

• A (i) and (ii) only
• B (iii) and (iv) only
• C (i) and (iii) only
• D (i) and (iv) only✓ correct

Why: Answer: (i) and (iv) only. Knowing and following HDB's rules is the salesperson's own duty under the Code, and he must guard against others' breaches, so the owner's say-so and her ownership do not shield him.(i) True. Code para 4(2)(e): no estate agency work on HDB flats unless fully conversant with, and compliant with, HDB's laws, rules and procedures.(ii) False. The duty to know HDB's rules is Yusof's own (para 4(2)(e)); para 4(1) bars estate agency work without the relevant knowledge, and para 5(1) requires due diligence, so the owner's description is no substitute.(iii) False. The inference fails: para 5(2)(a) bars doing anything that may lead to any person infringing the law, and para 4(2)(e) binds Yusof directly.(iv) True. Para 5(2)(b): take all reasonable precautions so that no law is infringed by any person.Watch out: CEA has disciplined a salesperson under para 4(1) read with 4(2)(e) for facilitating an HDB rental that breached HDB's conditions, although the conditions bound the owner.Rule: Know and follow HDB's rules before acting on an HDB flat, and take reasonable precautions so that neither you nor anyone else in the transaction breaks the law.Source: Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (First Schedule to the Estate Agents (Estate Agency Work) Regulations 2010), paras 4(1), 4(2)(e), 5(1) and 5(2), SSO consolidation in force from 1 Jan 2026, sso.agc.gov.sg, read 11 Oct 2026; CEA, Disciplinary Committee case note S/N 2/2024, cea.gov.sg Past disciplinary cases, read 11 Oct 2026.

A condominium whose latest Temporary Occupation Permit issued in March 2009 is pursuing a collective sale. The first owner signed the collective sale agreement on 14 May 2026. By April 2027 the sale committee holds signatures representing 81% of the share values and 79.4% of the total strata area. Which of the following is/are correct? (i) The required consents must be gathered within 12 months of 14 May 2026 before an application can be made to the Strata Titles Board. (ii) Since 81% of the share values have signed, the threshold is met, the strata area test applying only to younger developments. (iii) An owner who signs may rescind by notice within 5 days, excluding weekends and public holidays, and may do so once. (iv) Once the threshold is reached, the dissenting owners are bound without any order of the Strata Titles Board.

• A (ii) and (iv) only
• B (i) and (iii) only✓ correct
• C (i), (ii) and (iii) only
• D (ii), (iii) and (iv) only

Why: 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

Mrs Ng signs a property management contract for her rented-out condominium unit without reading it. Clause 9 excludes the manager's liability 'for any damage to furnishings howsoever caused'. Before she signed, the manager's staff told her the clause 'only covers breakage of fragile ornaments'. Later the manager's cleaner negligently ruins her leather sofa. (i) As a general rule, by signing the contract she is bound by clause 9 although she did not read it. (ii) The staff member's misdescription may confine the manager to the narrower effect that was described to her. (iii) Since the manager acts in the course of a business, therefore clause 9 must be reasonable to exclude its negligence liability. (iv) Clause 9 could also protect the manager if its cleaner's negligence had injured Mrs Ng's guest. Which of the statements is/are correct?

• A (i), (ii) and (iii) only✓ correct
• B (i) and (iv) only
• C (ii), (iii) and (iv) only
• D (i), (iii) and (iv) only

Why: Answer: (i), (ii) and (iii) only. Her signature incorporates clause 9, but the manager's own misstatement of its effect and the Unfair Contract Terms Act both limit how far it can rely on it.(i) True. A person who signs a contractual document is generally bound by its terms whether or not she read them (L'Estrange v Graucob).(ii) True. Where the other party misrepresents the effect of a clause, it cannot rely on the clause beyond what it represented (Curtis v Chemical Cleaning). The staff said it covered fragile ornaments only.(iii) True. Liability arising in the course of a business is business liability (s 1(3)). For loss other than death or personal injury, negligence liability can be excluded only so far as the term is reasonable (s 2(2)). A property management contract is a services contract, not a contract creating an interest in land.(iv) False. A contract term or notice cannot exclude or restrict liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence (s 2(1)). Clause 9 also deals only with furnishings.Rule: Signature incorporates terms, but a misrepresented clause is confined to its represented effect, and UCTA s 2 controls business exclusions of negligence liability.Source: L'Estrange v F Graucob Ltd [1934] 2 KB 394; Curtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co [1951] 1 KB 805; Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 (2020 Rev Ed) ss 1(3), 2(1), 2(2); law as at 2 Nov 2026.

Salesperson Rachel's agency is appointed by a developer to market a new condominium launch in Tampines. The developer offers early-bird discounts, reimburses buyers' legal fees after completion, and gives furniture vouchers. Her manager makes four statements under CEA's practice circular on benefits offered by developers. (i) The early-bird discount is a direct benefit, as it reduces the purchase price upfront. (ii) Since the legal-fee reimbursement also lowers what the buyer pays overall, it is a direct benefit like the discount. (iii) Since buyers need the true price, Rachel's flyers must give accurate information on the transaction price and the benefits, indirect ones included. (iv) The agency keeps a record of the benefits the developer offered, and submits it when CEA asks for it. Which statements are correct?

• A (i) and (ii) only
• B (i), (iii) and (iv) only✓ correct
• C (ii), (iii) and (iv) only
• D (i) and (iii) only

Why: Answer: (i), (iii) and (iv) only. CEA's circular sorts developer benefits by when the buyer receives them, and makes the agency answer for accuracy and for a record of them.(i) True. Direct benefits, such as early-bird and VIP discounts, reduce the purchase price upfront (PC 02-15, para 1).(ii) False. A reimbursement paid after the purchase is an indirect benefit. The price is not reduced; the buyer gets cash back later, as with legal-fee or stamp-duty reimbursements and furniture vouchers (para 1).(iii) True. Advertising and marketing materials must carry accurate information on the transaction price and on the direct and indirect benefits, so that buyers know the true transaction price (para 3).(iv) True. Estate agents keep a record of the direct and indirect benefits offered by the developers who engaged them, in the Annex A format, and submit it when CEA requires (para 4).Watch out: 'lowers what the buyer pays overall' describes every benefit. The test is timing: a cut in the price upfront is direct, cash back later is indirect.Rule: Direct benefit = price reduced upfront; indirect benefit = cash back later. Both go into marketing materials accurately, and the agency keeps a record of them (PC 02-15, in force from 25 May 2015 and still listed by CEA as at 11 Nov 2026).Source: CEA Practice Circular PC 02-15, Duties of estate agents and salespersons to convey accurate information to prospective purchasers on the transaction price of private residential property and on benefits offered by developers (19 May 2015), paras 1, 3 and 4, cea.gov.sg, read 11 Nov 2026

Orchid Holdings Pte Ltd, a Singapore investment holding company that carries on no housing development business, buys a completed condominium unit for $2,400,000 in 2026. The market value is $2,350,000. The company already owns three other condominium units, all let out, and its directors ask the salesperson about the duties. (i) Since the company already owns three units, its Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty is charged at the third-property rate of 30% (ii) The Buyer's Stamp Duty is $89,600, computed on the $2,400,000 price because it exceeds the market value (iii) Since the company is incorporated in Singapore, it is charged at 40%, the rate for a housing developer (iv) The Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty is $1,560,000, charged at the 65% rate that applies to an entity Which of the statements is/are correct?

• A (ii) and (iv) only✓ correct
• B (ii) only
• C (i) and (iv) only
• D (i) and (ii) only

Why: Answer: (ii) and (iv) only. An entity pays 65% ABSD on every residential purchase, and both duties use the $2,400,000 price as the higher figure.(i) False. The company does own three units, but an entity pays 65% on every residential purchase. The property count belongs to individuals.(ii) True. The price exceeds the market value, and $44,600 plus 5% of $900,000 is $89,600.(iii) False. The developer rate turns on being a licensed housing developer, not on where the company is incorporated.(iv) True. 65% of $2,400,000 is $1,560,000.Working:1. BSD: $44,600 on the first $1,500,0002. BSD: 5% × $900,000 = $45,0003. BSD: $44,600 + $45,000 = $89,6004. ABSD: 65% × $2,400,000 = $1,560,000Rule: BSD and ABSD are both computed on the higher of price and market value, and residential BSD bands from 15 Feb 2023 give $44,600 on the first $1,500,000 and 5% on the next $1,500,000. From 27 Apr 2023 an entity pays ABSD at 65% on every residential purchase, while a licensed housing developer pays 40%, of which 35% is remittable on conditions.Source: IRAS, Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD), read 22 Oct 2026; IRAS, Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD), read 22 Oct 2026

Mr Seah, a Singapore Citizen who has met his MOP, wants to rent out his whole 4-room flat, but HDB's check shows that his block has reached its Non-Citizen Quota. Every pass mentioned below has more than a year to run, and each group would be the only tenants. His salesperson considers four groups of applicants. (i) Three unrelated Malaysians working in Singapore, each holding an S Pass from the Ministry of Manpower. (ii) A Singapore Citizen and his Vietnamese wife, who holds a Long-Term Social Visit Pass, renting as one family. (iii) A Singapore Permanent Resident couple with their two children, all four of them Permanent Residents, renting as one family. (iv) A Singaporean family of three, sharing the flat with an unrelated Indian national who holds an Employment Pass. Which groups can HDB still approve as tenants of the whole flat?

• A (i), (iii) and (iv) only
• B (ii) and (iv) only
• C (i) and (ii) only✓ correct
• D (i) and (iii) only

Why: Answer: (i) and (ii) only. Once the quota is reached only Singaporeans and Malaysians can rent a whole flat there, and a family with a Singaporean member and no other unrelated tenants falls outside the quota.(i) True. Malaysians are not subject to the Non-Citizen Quota, so a block that has reached it can still be let to Malaysian tenants.(ii) True. The quota does not apply where the family renting the flat includes at least 1 Singaporean and all unrelated tenants are Singaporeans or Malaysians. This family has no unrelated tenants.(iii) False. Singapore Permanent Residents are non-Malaysian non-citizens, so the quota applies to them, and it has been reached.(iv) False. The family exception needs every unrelated tenant to be a Singaporean or a Malaysian. The Indian Employment Pass holder is unrelated, so the quota applies.Watch out: "non-citizen" in the quota includes Singapore Permanent Residents. Only Malaysians are carved out by nationality.Rule: Whole-flat letting to any non-Malaysian non-citizen counts against the quota of 8% per neighbourhood and 11% per block (as at 11 Nov 2026), unless the renting family includes a Singaporean and every unrelated tenant is a Singaporean or Malaysian. The quota does not apply to bedroom rental.Source: HDB, Eligibility for Renting Out a Flat, hdb.gov.sg/managing-my-home/home-ownership/renting-out-a-flat-or-bedrooms/renting-out-a-flat/eligibility (last updated 1 Nov 2026), read 11 Nov 2026; HDB, Guide for Estate Agents: Regulations for Renting a Flat, hdb.gov.sg/business-partners/estate-agents-and-salespersons/guide-for-estate-agents-renting-a-flat/regulations (last updated 1 Nov 2026), read 11 Nov 2026.

Salesperson Ivan quotes MAS's Financial Stability Review of September 2026 in a client newsletter: household financial assets grew 9.5% year on year in Q2 2026 against 8.3% for liabilities; household debt rose to 1.08 times personal disposable income, from 1.04 a year earlier; and households' currency and deposits exceeded their total liabilities. His manager checks four lines of his commentary. (i) Household net worth rose over the year, with financial assets growing faster than liabilities. (ii) A debt-to-income ratio of 1.08 times means households spend 108% of their monthly income on debt repayments. (iii) Since currency and deposits alone exceed total household liabilities, therefore households in aggregate hold a liquidity buffer against shocks. (iv) The higher debt-to-income ratio shows that MAS relaxed the TDSR limit during the year. Which statements are correct?

• A (i) and (iii) only✓ correct
• B (i), (ii) and (iii) only
• C (ii) and (iv) only
• D (iii) and (iv) only

Why: Answer: (i) and (iii) only. Net worth rose and liquid assets cover liabilities; the debt-to-income ratio compares a stock of debt with a year's income and says nothing about a change in the TDSR.(i) True. MAS reported that financial assets grew 9.5% against 8.3% for liabilities, contributing to a further rise in household net worth.(ii) False. Debt-to-personal disposable income compares the total debt outstanding with a year's disposable income. It is not a repayment ratio. MAS reported that the median mortgage servicing to income ratio for new loans stayed well below the 55% TDSR limit.(iii) True. MAS reported that household liquid financial assets, currency and deposits, continued to exceed total household liabilities, a strong liquidity buffer.(iv) False. The TDSR limit stayed at 55%. MAS attributed the rise mainly to higher outstanding mortgage loans, amid a moderate rise in property prices.Rule: Read a household balance sheet as assets less liabilities. Debt-to-income measures leverage against income; liquid assets against liabilities measure the buffer; neither is a debt-servicing ratio.Source: MAS, Financial Stability Review, September 2026, Chapter 4 and Box B (mas.gov.sg, read 12 Nov 2026).