In strict theory, causation (called ‘cause in fact’) and remoteness (called ‘cause in law’) must be dealt with as two separate requirements in each case. Causation is a matter of fact and requires the claimant to prove that the negligent act caused the damage complained of. The rules concerning remoteness of damage are a matter of law and broadly require the claimant to establish that the damage was of a kind which was reasonably foreseeable. It is concerned with setting a limit on the extent of the harm for which the defendant should be held liable. However, it is not always a clear cut issue to establish where causation ends and remoteness begins, nor is it always a simple matter to separate some aspects of remoteness from issues which arise in relation to duty of care. Both causation and remoteness of damage frequently turn on issues of policy. Both are relevant throughout the law of tort and are dealt with in connection with negligence for the sake of completeness.
Throughout history, the norm of reciprocity has shaped human psychology, emphasizing the role of cues such as debt, favor, bargain and obligation in governing social relations. Manipulation premises are widely-accepted in analyzing agency theories and decoding mind-control techniques. Awareness of the effectiveness of these manipulative schemes is essential to counter verbal manipulation and isolate the necessary features that make up the manipulative scenario. Such curious use is prevalent in causal discourse, highlighting the intricacy between causation and manipulation. The case of the English verb GET is illustrative of the manipulative meaning which characterizes the causative use of this verb in the International Corpus of English.