The concept of trade measures under the electronic refers customers to control access to the computer system of the company to customize product and service according to their wishes and to send product and service at the right time. 

and;

The author has quoted many authors who have dealt with the issue of electronic commerce see on page.18-20 and references at the end of the dissertation.

http://www.doktoratura.unitir.edu.al/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Doktoratura-Zhaneta-Ndregjoni-Fakulteti-Ekonomise-Departamenti-i-Marketingut.pdf

Two party / multi party transaction is likely to be  a better choice

We also have a company (small), I think, Regarding the developing countries The negotiation face by face is best choosing before make  the contract. Because when negotiating face by face will understand each other and easing in order to express on products, on price and other problem...

But Before negotiation face by face we also can contact and discuss by internet or telephone, Especially the countries that The legal system is not transparent, the negotiations over the internet or telephone can lead to risk?

I prefer face to face negotiations

@Nakije Kida

thank your for your information. I could see that enormous number of papers are written over the subject-matter of e-commerce.

Internet and e-commerce changes the actual procedure of transactions and it may be an important change. What I am interested is more basic and theoretical. In the economics textbooks, the typical image of exchange is given by organized markets like New York Stock Exchange or Chicago Mercantile Exchange. This tradition starts from Leon Walras who explicitly declared that his model market was the Bourse de Paris.

However, if you see around you, most of economic exchange is done person to person, firm to person, or firm to firm. It is strange that we have no established technical terms that stand for the transactions which are made between two parties. We may say that more than 95% of industrial goods transactions (except financial transactions of assets) are made by negotiation between two parties including firm to firm. Electric commerce by internet is not an exemption. Except those auction sites that treat unique items like artistic products and used goods, all transactions are exchange between two parties.

What I want is to change this state of the economic thinking. Walrasian type multi-lateral transactions are rare exceptions among many other transactions.    

 @Rabindra Shakya

thank your for your suggestion. Opposition between two-party versus multi-party transaction is quite useful. 

Thank you Sir (SAMA)! Though II also often on transactions over the internet. From production to user often through trade corporation, the products iis purchaser price. When I compiled interregional io framework will be difficulty when the trade units can inside of region can outsize of region? Please tell me how can I estimate them?

In my humble opinion the term two-party transaction is more appropriate. There are significant indication of this term in Marketing Researches and textbooks such as issues in financial services as soft products. The creation and handling of the product to the final consumer must be between two-party which involve the customer (individual or firm) and the financial organization. Simply it is two-party dealings. Similarly thinking out of the box or beyond conventional finance. In law (both common and Shari'ah laws) one of elements of contract is "contracting-party"

On the issue of market-place I mean meeting of the contracting parties current technological sophistication has changed traditional definition of market. Market now include online, phone etc. Thus, it would be more clear for contract to start from two-party and can be extended to another contract which would bring-in another third-party to perform different function from that of the initiators.  I will spend some time to sketch or provide diagram of what I am suggesting.   

Dear Bui and Lukman,

thank you for precious information. I am thinking that a market is a network of tow-party transactions. The third party can implicitly intervene in the course of the negotiation by offering more competitive price. 

Dear Yoshinori,

I agree that most transactions happen between two agents. However, a key tenet of Walrasian market is that there are several such agents in the market. Spread of E-Commerce has further enhanced this idea. For example, let's say I want to buy an item on Amazon. There are several sellers that may be selling that item for the same price. The seller that gets displayed in the search result page may be random. I may decide to buy from that seller or from a different seller. The key point is that if the item is identical, no one seller will have a price that is too high or too low from the price generally quoted by other sellers. This seems to make the market more competitive rather than monopolistic or monopsonistic.

Dear Yoshinori, I am much pleased about the above discussion on 'coining the suitable term on transactions between parties' in the market. Please would you like to through more light on your statement "Opposition between two-party versus multi-party transaction is quite useful."? 

There is not, so far as I can find, a completely suitable term,  The term that first came to my mind was "negotiation."

Jeffry Jacob,

thank you for raising an interesting question: what is the key tenet of Walrasian market. Although this question does not have direct connection to my question, let me make a brief explanation. 

For the moment I have no firm textual evidence for what I say in the following. I have never studied Walras's Éléments d'économie politique pure in detail.

The well known Walrasian notion of general equilibrium is the state that demand and supply are equal for all markets at a set of prices. If this condition is not satisfied, the tâtonnement or groping must restart. Therefore, the terms Walrasian and non-Walrasian are defined according as whether the all market clearing condition is satisfied or not.

Walras started his analysis with two-person barter, but it seems that the core of Walrasian analysis is the simultaneous clearing of all markets. This conception is adopted in Arrow and Debreu's concept of competitive equilibrium. This state does not happen even in the security markets. Stock prices are determined by each stock name and never wait until all other stock names come to the clearing state.

The standard notion of Walrasian market is much more stringent than simple organized market. What I called organized market is something like security exchange or commodity exchange. The security market (in the case of Tokyo Security Exchange) collects for each name the information of buy and sell offers of all persons who want to participate in the transaction and determine the price where the largest number of stocks can be exchanged. Transactions are determined collectively. This is not a transaction between two-persons or two-parties.

Jeffry cites the example of E-commerce. This is in a sense an organized market but not in my sense.

In the normal E-commerce (for example Amazon), transactions are made between two parties: one seller and a buyer. In the case, the seller sets the price, time priority principle applies and the first person who offered to buy get the right to buy the item. This is two-party transaction, even if people know and compare the prices of other offers and many others are watching (Amazon used book selling).

E-commerce made price competition more severe but it does not change the fundamental characteristics of two-person transactions.

If the E-commerce takes the form of auction (say E-bay), it is difficult to say that it is two-party transaction. We must say that an auction in E-commerce is a kind of organized market just like security exchange or commodity exchange.

Dear Arjun,

please read my previous post addressed to Jeffry Jacob. I tried to make clear the opposition between two-party transaction and organized transaction.

 Dear William,

thank you for your post. The information that you cannot find a completely suitable term is very precious for me. It is difficult to know this kind of thing for a English speaker as foreign language. 

Dear Concha Diez-Pastor,

Spanish is a language rich of various nuanced expressions (I was taught as such by my Spanish speaking colleagues when I was student). 

In Japanese, we have a term "aitai torihiki." This term originally meant face-to-face transaction. But the meaning was extended to include electric transactions. Now, "aitai torihiki" means all transactions between two-parties without questioning if it is made face-to face or on the wire.   

Dear Yoshinori Shiozawa,

I thought about the term bilateral. The deffinition itself means undertaken by two parties, as in bilateral agreements. I would propose bilateral transactions. However, I am a native spanish speaker and it could be a direct transaltion from a Spanish term, just as you mentioned the case of "face-to-face"

Dear Cynthia.

"bilateral transaction" is a good alternative. I did not get it. Thank you.

We have now three possibilities: face-to-face, two-party and bilateral transactions.

Dear Professor Shiozawa,

I also agree with the term "bilateral" by Ms. Gomez. Other related terms could be mutual, reciprocal, and two-sided. But I would prefer "bilateral" if I had to discuss business transactions.

Sincerely,

Cameen 

Dear William Sheridan and Dr. Ghassan Ossman,

negotiation is a process which eventually arrives at a exchange contract. Contract and negotiation is most often made between two parties, but what I want to get is the term which express this special form of contract or transaction which takes place between two parties instead of multilateral, organized transactions of which the typical from is security and commodity exchange.

In the standard economics textbook, it is normally explained that price of a good is determined at the intersection of demand and supply functions (Marshallian cross). However, there are no demand and supply functions in the market (except at the Itayose trading in an organized market). Those who determines prices are merchants or traders. Most commonly observed form of transactions is the two-party or bilateral transactions. Seen from legal aspect, it is a contract and seen from process it is a negotiation.

What I want to emphasize is that exchange transactions are most often made between two parties and I want to have a simple good term that makes clear contrast against multilateral negotiation and contract.   

I agree with the explanation provided by Prof. Goli Srinivasarao.

Regards

SM Najim

Dear Gavin Kennedy,

my intention is to find a good term that expresses transaction or exchange between two parties to contrast it with transaction or exchange between many parties/persons. In this sense, Cynthia Sosa Gomez 's terminology bilateral versus multilateral exchange or transaction just answer my demand. I have also thank Cameen Kettanun for expressing his consent for this terminology.

The short concise expression "exchange" is not usable because this word is already used to express multilateral transaction which is made for example in perfectly organized market.

Dear Salah Mahdi Najim,

thank you for posting your agreement with Prof. Goli Srinivasarao.

Have you noticed that his post is a simple "copy and paste" of my post.  He may have written another text and wanted to paste it. By some accident, he have pasted my original text. I have asked him what happened but there is no response from him.     

Another approach (although I have not seen it) may be to use the term atomized exchange or transaction as opposed to market exchange or transaction. Just a thought.

Gavin,

My focus was on the adjective, not the noun. I was trying to avoid the discussion on exchange vs. transaction which is why I put both in. Of course, exchange doesn't require markets, as is readily apparent from our two person trade models. I suggested the term atomized for non-market transactions between (2) individuals as opposed to market when the exchange is between an individual and the market. I have never seen this used (for which the questioner was looking), but I thought it was a convenient way to portray it.

Lee

Dear Lee Siegel,

welcome to our discussion. It seems that you are making a common misunderstanding as many other economists.

The modern market economy is a network of enormous number of bilateral exchanges. The "market" is not necessarily a visible entity like market place or security exchange. Security exchange or Bourse de Paris was what Leon Walras imagined as a typical  model when he wanted to formulate his system.  It was a powerful figure and many economists after him caught impression that those transactions in security markets are the typical form of all exchanges which take place in the modern industrial economy. I want to object this common understanding and for this purpose I need good contrasting terms by which we can easily under stand which is the more standard and ubiquitous form of transactions.  

Dear Yoshinori Shiozawa,

You are of course correct that ultimately all exchanges (including through markets) are bilateral. If I buy something it came from some seller or sellers (although it could take place through intermediaries). I think the distinguishing factor that you are trying to highlight is that in what we would normally term bilateral trade, the 2 entities know with whom they are trading and the terms of the trade are negotiated. In what I would term "market" transactions, the participants are basically anonymous and/or don't care about the identity of the other. Further the price is set (usually by 1 party which could be a dealer) and no negotiation takes place.  Given the above, maybe better terms are negotiable transactions for the typical bilateral trade and anonymous transactions for the more "market" variety.

Lee

Dear Lee,

I now see what you wanted to say by "market" transactions. "Bilateral trade" would be another possibility for my term. Anonymity is, yes, one of very important characteristics of the modern economy (and even of the modern society). I thank you for reminding me this important fact.   

Your comment reminded me the silent trade that Karl Polanyi talked and argued. In this case, are the traders anonymous or not? I have no opinion on this and it is not directly connected to my question, but a small interesting question.

Yoshinori

Yoshinori,

Have to work on a report without distractions, so I won't be able to continue this conversation. However I hope my discussion was somewhat helpful. Lots of luck.

Lee

Contracts

I recommend you use "two-party transaction" because it would include both in person exchanges as well as online or telephone exchanges. 

Some synonyms for "transaction" are:

agreement, pact, contract, purchase, and negotiation

Dear William Rapp,

I notice that you have many papers on industries in Japan, covering various fields. It is amazing.

Contract that you have proposed may be a too general term. It can stand for both bilateral and multi-lateral transactions. What I want is terms which expresses teh clear contrast between these two kind of transactions or contracts.

Yoshinori

Dear Paul Stock,

thank you for recommending me "tow-party transaction." Now I am thinking that two expressions "two-party transaction" and "bilateral transaction" are exchangeable and usable in the same meaning.

You were professor of military science and in charge of Automation and Modernization. You must have accumulated enormous knowledge on the development of  technology. This is, in my opinion,  the most important and crucial aspect of economic development. I hope you will contribute to economic on this area.

Yoshinori 

Dear Gavin Kennedy,

many thanks for repeatedly posting in this question page.

I read your paper The Myth of the Invisible Hand – A View From The Trenches which appeared in SSRN journal (free to download). It was very interesting. In some sense, this is the paper I was searching for. When I read the paragraph of Wealth of Nations which contains the words “invisible hand,” I was surprised that there was no discussion on this concept or theory. I wondered if this is what Smith intended to say by this “famous parable.”

I asked several colleagues on this point and received an answer that the notion became famous only in the 20th century but with no additional information. Samuelson invented (perhaps without intending) several “urban legends” in the History of Economic Thought. Your paper just clarified that this was just an urban legend, almost fabricated by Samuelson‘s Economics: An introductory analysis.

Another urban legend I believe is the myth that Adam Smith presented the theory of absolute advantage. Yoshii, Fujimoto and I have written a paper on this, but famous journals on history of economic thought do not want to accept our paper. The conventional inertia to keep a well established “urban legend” is very strong.

I respect you in that you have fought many years to redress the once established “urban legend.” Your paper is a “must” who are engaged in teaching history of economics. I also hope that the “invisible hand” myth will be laid off from the economics teaching in the near future.

As for your contention in the first of your posts (post #27) that

• Abstract theoretical distinctions such as 'bilateral' and multilateral' exchanges are distinctions without a difference in the real world and history of exchange behaviors,

You must be misunderstanding my intention. Bilateral and multilateral exchanges both exist in the real economy. Most of exchanges or transactions are bilateral. Firm to firm, firm to wholesaler, wholesaler to retailer, and retailer to consumer transactions are all bilateral. Multilateral transaction (or at least the process of negotiation) is observed in rare cases such as security exchange, commodity exchange, wholesale market of vegetables and marine products (in Japan), and perhaps negotiations between employer and employees.

What I am objecting is the textbook notion that all transactions are made by a kind of “cry out” methods in some of organized markets such as Chicago Mercantile Exchange (maybe in past years). This is a myth which was framed up together with “invisible hand” myth. Market economy or free market system does not work by the aid of the invisible hand, but works by the actions and decisions of producers, merchants, and consumers. As I have explained to Lee Siegel in my post #32 of this question page,

• [t]he modern market economy is a network of enormous number of bilateral exchanges. The "market" is not necessarily a visible entity like market place or security exchange.

Bilateral and multilateral transactions are the necessary distinction to explain your contention against “invisible hand” myth.

Yoshinor

It is a contract and should be termed as "Bilateral Contract" in view and interpretation of law. Bilateral contract is a contract where two promises exist. The promise from a party to place or put in a responsibility to discharge a specific duty at a specific time and explicitly conditions attach at the same time the other party accept and agree in principle and practical that once the former party fulfill his/her contractual/ promises he/she would execute/discharge certain action(s) in order to complement the former obligation(s) on the same specific duty, time, and condition(s). This serves as means where both parties satisfy there canal desires on the subject-matter of contract....

This explanation fulfills both Common and Shari'ah Laws' definition of contract. In as much as these promises and obligations were not done under duress, intimidation/compulsion of any kind.......

Thank you, Lukman Olorogun for this answer that clarifies the legal aspect of two-party transaction. Is it possible to say bilateral transaction? I want to know a suitable term which expresses transaction based on bilateral contract.

Yes, Yoshinori affirmatively is acceptable based on the legal terms for establishing contract of transactions. Thus, the term "bilateral transaction" acceptable in financial and economic perspective...

Transaction between two parties would be an appropriate teminology ro be used.

Thanks Rabindra Shakya, but what is the basis of chosen the statement "transaction between two parties" above " bilateral transaction". I believe terms are based on holistic theory wherein the subject of theory are considered from all aspects of the subject such as it's economic, financial, legal, psychological, philosophy perspectives... Now your choice seems like an explanation of the term chosen by " Yoshinori"...

Lukman Olorogun and Rabindra Shakya

thank you for the discussion. My question originates from my query for a good term to be used in my book. The book was already published as you see my comment on my project Four chapters for two books

https://www.researchgate.net/project/Four-chapters-for-two-books/update/5d177949cfe4a7968daff6eb

I have only used the term "transactions between parties" in page 68 (Subsection 2.3.4 Research Strategy). If possible I wanted to argue more on bilateral transaction or transactions between two parties. I have to contrast this type of transactions against transactions which will be settled between many parties.

In the conventional equilibrium framework, market price is determined at the point where the total demand is equal to the total supply. In this case, it is evident that there is a way to settle who takes which goods and theory ignores this aspect of allocation. So, the conventional theory assumes that people make a transaction between a group of sellers ans a group of buyers. I wanted to argue that this lump-sum transaction is in fact extremely fictive (only possible in an organized market like New York Securities Exchange) and any realistic transaction is made by bilateral transactions or transactions between two parties. If both is possible, I prefer a short one when we want to argue this point seriously. We may make a contrast between lump-sum transaction and bilateral transaction. How do you think of this idea?

Yoshinori Shiozawa, I understand your stand and I'm with you on the issue of using short terminology because easy of assimilation. Further, there is distinction between lump-sum transaction and bilateral transaction in all ramification. Linguistically, one might do a lump-sum transaction which can be unilateral or bilateral. Lump-sum transaction can be done on sales where exchange between the parties takes place immediately and might not be bilateral. I hope this is enough without digging into technical aspect of it.

In the case of New York securities Exchange there are different types of commodities such as bond, treasure bills, stocks, mutual funds etc. and contracts and market rules guiding trading activities. However, the rule of lump-sum transaction is yet different from bilateral transaction. Take for an example, portfolio manager making a huge transaction might opt for a huge and lump-sum derivative on his/her portfolio or going by different commodities. I hope this is sufficient.....

Thank you for detailed explanation. I owe you very much, Lukman Olorogun .

I would call it a two-party transaction. However, I think the distinction has to be defined more precisely, because even on security and commodity exchanges there are normally only two parties to any transaction, even if other people are witnesses to it.