First via a counter example it is shown that the Proposition 3 of Anbarci & Sun (2013) is false. Then a gap and a mistake in their proof are identified. Finally, a modified version of their Proposition 3 is stated and proved.

These notes consist of two parts. In the rst one I present a counter example to Proposition 3 of Anbarci & Sun (2013). In the second part I propose a correction based on an axiom similar to one used by Salonen (1988) in the rst axiomatization of the Discrete Raia solution.

The present paper tries in a largely non-technical way to discuss the aim, the basic notions and methods as well as the limits of game theory under the aspect of providing a general modelling method or language for social sciences.

Howard (1992) argues that the Nash bargaining solution is not Nash implementable, as it does not satisfy Maskin monotonicity. His arguments can be extended to other bargaining solutions as well. However, by de.ning a social choice correspondence that is based on the solution rather than on its...

This article provides an exact non-cooperative foundation of the sequential Raiffa solution for two person bargaining games. Based on an approximate foundation due to Myerson (1997) for any two-person bargaining game (S, d) an extensive form game G^{S,d} is defined that has an infinity of weakly...

This paper provides four axioms that uniquely characterize the Sequential Raiffa solution proposed by Raiffa (1951, 1953) for two-person bargaining games. Three of these axioms are standard and are shared by several popular bargaining solutions. They suffice to characterize these solutions on...