Abstract
This article contributes to the theorisation of the tort of deceit through a remedial lens. It does so by analysing and justifying the peculiar (and rather pro-plaintiff) rules that shape the two causative criteria that form the backdrop for the award of compensatory damages for the tort of deceit. These are the benchmarks for transaction causation and loss causation. The article’s thesis is the argument that damages assessment for the tort of deceit functions, in substance, to mimic a judicial reordering of transactions and outcomes resulting from the fraudulent bypassing of the deliberative faculties of innocent representees. The consequence is that the wrongdoer is held responsible for all the adverse consequences reasonably connected with the victim’s change of position in reliance on the representor’s deception.