Question 1BeginnerSources of law
Laws made by Parliament, such as the Estate Agents Act and the Planning Act, are known as __________.
- Astatutes
- Bcommon law
- Cequity
- Dcase law
Show answer
Answer: A. statutes
Statutes are written law passed by Parliament, and where a statute conflicts with the common law or equity, the statute prevails. Common law (case law) is judge-made law built on judicial precedents, while equity developed from the rules of natural justice.
Question 2BeginnerReal & personal property
An easement, which is a right over another person’s land, is an example of __________.
- Aan incorporeal hereditament
- Ba corporeal hereditament
- Ca chattel
- Da personal right of the dominant owner
Show answer
Answer: A. an incorporeal hereditament
Incorporeal hereditaments are non-physical real property rights, such as easements, restrictive covenants and the State’s rights to minerals. Corporeal hereditaments are physical land and buildings, and an easement is a proprietary right, not a personal one.
Question 3BeginnerFixtures & chattels
Under the degree of annexation test, an item that simply rests on its own weight is presumed to be __________.
- Aa chattel
- Ba fixture
- Ca tenant’s fixture
- Dan incorporeal hereditament
Show answer
Answer: A. a chattel
An item fixed to the building is presumed to be a fixture, while one resting on its own weight is presumed to remain a chattel. The purpose of annexation test can displace either presumption, as where heavy storage tanks resting on their own weight were held to be part of the land.
Question 4BeginnerFreehold estates
An estate in perpetuity, also known as a Statutory Land Grant, is created under the __________.
- AState Lands Act
- BLand Titles (Strata) Act
- CResidential Property Act
- DConveyancing and Law of Property Act
Show answer
Answer: A. State Lands Act
The estate in perpetuity is a statutory estate created under the State Lands Act and subject to its implied conditions, such as a quit rent (waived since 1 January 1992) and the State’s right to take mineral oil. An estate in fee simple carries no such conditions.
Question 5BeginnerFuture interests
When a landlord grants a tenant a 2-year lease, the landlord’s remaining interest in the property is called the __________.
- Areversion
- Bremainder
- Clife estate
- Dequity of redemption
Show answer
Answer: A. reversion
The reversion is the future interest the grantor keeps, which entitles him to possession when the lease ends. A remainder is a future interest given to a third person after a life estate, and the equity of redemption is a mortgagor’s right to redeem.
Question 6BeginnerJoint tenancy
The four unities that must be present for a joint tenancy are __________.
- Apossession, interest, title and time
- Bpossession, interest, value and time
- Cpossession, occupation, title and survivorship
- Dinterest, title, time and registration
Show answer
Answer: A. possession, interest, title and time
Joint tenants must have the same possession, the same interest, a title from the same document and interests that vest at the same time. Survivorship is a consequence of a joint tenancy, not one of the unities.
Question 7IntermediateFixtures & chattels
Mr Goh Kian Seng, 58, a retired engineer, has sold his three-bedroom condominium unit at Bedok Reservoir Road to Ms Farah Aziz for $1,380,000 so that he can move in with his daughter in Punggol. The option, which Farah exercised on Tuesday, 8 September 2026, states that the washing machine and curtains are included, but it is silent on the built-in wardrobes screwed to the bedroom walls and on a free-standing teak bookshelf in the study. Mr Goh paid $18,000 for the carpentry in 2019, and a previous agent once told him that “anything you can unscrew is yours to take”. He now plans to remove both the wardrobes and the bookshelf before completion on Tuesday, 3 November 2026.
Which of the following BEST describes the legal position?
- AThe wardrobes are presumed to be fixtures that pass to Farah with the unit, but Mr Goh may take the free-standing bookshelf, which remains a chattel
- BMr Goh may take both the wardrobes and the bookshelf, because neither item is mentioned anywhere in the option that Farah has exercised
- CBoth items pass to Farah, because all the furniture left in a unit when the option is exercised is treated as forming part of the land
- DMr Goh may take the wardrobes, as they can be unscrewed without damage, but the free-standing bookshelf passes to Farah with the unit
Show answer
Answer: A. The wardrobes are presumed to be fixtures that pass to Farah with the unit, but Mr Goh may take the free-standing bookshelf, which remains a chattel
Built-in wardrobes screwed to the walls are fixed to the building, so they are presumed to be fixtures and pass with the unit unless the parties agree otherwise. The free-standing bookshelf rests on its own weight and is presumed to remain a chattel, so Mr Goh may take it. The old agent’s claim is wrong: the fact that an item can be unscrewed does not make it a chattel. The option’s silence does not let the seller keep fixtures, and not every piece of furniture left behind becomes part of the land. The price, the carpentry cost and the washing machine listed in the option do not affect the answer.
Question 8IntermediateJoint tenancy
Mr Koh Teck Wah and his second wife, Mrs Serene Koh, bought a condominium unit in Clementi in 2010 for $1,100,000 and hold it as joint tenants; it is now worth about $1,900,000. In 2019, Mr Koh made a will, properly signed and witnessed, leaving “my share of the condominium unit” to Marcus, 34, his son from an earlier marriage, who works as an accountant in Perth. Mr Koh never lodged any document with SLA to change the way the unit was held. He died in August 2026. Marcus, who is also named as executor, tells the couple’s salesperson that his lawyer in Perth has advised him that he now owns half the unit under the will.
Which of the following BEST describes who now owns the unit?
- AMrs Koh alone, because on Mr Koh’s death his interest passed to her automatically by the right of survivorship, whatever his will says
- BMrs Koh and Marcus as tenants in common in equal shares, because the will operated to sever the joint tenancy on Mr Koh’s death
- CMarcus alone, because a gift of the unit in a will that was validly signed and witnessed overrides the joint tenancy on the title
- DMrs Koh and Marcus as joint tenants, because Marcus steps into his late father’s place as joint tenant under the terms of the will
Show answer
Answer: A. Mrs Koh alone, because on Mr Koh’s death his interest passed to her automatically by the right of survivorship, whatever his will says
When a joint tenant dies, his interest passes automatically to the surviving joint tenant, whatever his will says. Mr Koh could have left a share by will only if he had severed the joint tenancy during his lifetime, and a will cannot do this, because survivorship operates at the moment of death. Marcus therefore takes nothing from the unit, and his lawyer’s view is wrong. The unit’s value, Marcus’s residence in Australia and the proper witnessing of the will do not change the answer.
Question 9IntermediatePower of attorney
In March 2025, Mr Lee Chin Huat, 81, gave his son, Lee Wen Jie, an ordinary power of attorney expressly authorising him to sell Mr Lee’s condominium unit in Marine Parade and to sign all documents for the sale. Wen Jie listed the unit with a salesperson, and in May 2026 a buyer offered $1,650,000, slightly above the bank’s valuation. Before the option could be granted, however, Mr Lee developed advanced dementia and, according to his doctor, lost mental capacity. Mr Lee had never made an LPA. Wen Jie, who lives with his father and manages all his bills, says that the power of attorney “clearly covers the sale, so nothing has changed”.
Which of the following statements about the son’s position is NOT correct?
- AThe ordinary power of attorney ceased to have effect when Mr Lee lost mental capacity, however widely its powers of sale were worded
- BAs Mr Lee never made an LPA, the court may make the decision about the sale or appoint a deputy to act for Mr Lee
- CThe son may still sign the sale documents, because an ordinary power of attorney remains valid until the donor dies or revokes it
- DWen Jie’s role in managing his father’s bills does not keep the power alive after Mr Lee lost his mental capacity
Show answer
Answer: C. The son may still sign the sale documents, because an ordinary power of attorney remains valid until the donor dies or revokes it
The key is the statement that is wrong. An ordinary power of attorney lasts until it is revoked, the donor dies or loses mental capacity, or an event stated in it occurs, so it ended when Mr Lee developed advanced dementia, however widely it was worded. The other three statements are correct: the power ceased on loss of capacity; where no LPA was made, the Mental Capacity Act allows the court to make the decision or appoint a deputy; and the son’s day-to-day role in his father’s affairs does not revive the power. The buyer’s offer and the valuation are irrelevant.
Question 10IntermediateWills & probate
Mdm Ho Lai Kuen, 76, signed her will at home on Monday, 14 September 2026, rather than at her lawyer’s office in Raffles Place. The will leaves her three-room HDB flat in Toa Payoh, worth about $430,000, to her only son, and $50,000 in cash to her niece, Ms Tan Hui Min, who has helped care for her for many years. Because the lawyer could not attend, Mdm Ho signed the will in the presence of Ms Tan and a neighbour, Mdm Rosnah binte Ali, who both signed it as witnesses at the same time. Mdm Ho was clearly of sound mind, and her son, who lives in Jurong, was not present.
Which of the following statements about the will is NOT correct?
- AThe will remains valid, so the flat still passes to Mdm Ho’s son under its terms
- BThe niece still receives her $50,000, because the will as a whole remains valid
- CHad the neighbour’s husband been a beneficiary, a gift to him would also have been void
- DOnly the gift to the witness fails; the rest of the will stands and takes effect
Show answer
Answer: B. The niece still receives her $50,000, because the will as a whole remains valid
The key is the statement that is wrong. Under section 10 of the Wills Act, a gift to an attesting witness or the witness’s spouse is void, but the rest of the will stands, so the niece loses her $50,000 even though the will is valid. The other statements are correct: the son still takes the flat; a gift to a witness’s spouse, such as the neighbour’s husband, would also be void; and only the witness’s gift fails. Mdm Ho’s age, the lawyer’s office and the flat’s value are irrelevant.
136 questions on Basic Land Laws in the app
Option to Pass has 1,850+ original questions across all 16 chapters at three levels, 80+ case studies and two full mock papers in the real exam format. Lesson 1A is free, with no sign-up.
More free questions for Paper 1