> Obvious issue of apple not paid the bee farm but no such issue - all paid and in fact have contract what kind of bees etc.

What are you trying to say? This sentence is nonsense.

There's a famous economics paper by a guy called Meade that gives some examples of externalities (i.e., situations where what one person does affects another in ways not represented by market transactions); one example is of a region where some people keep bees and some grow apple trees, and the bees get food from the apple trees and/or the apple trees are pollinated by the bees. The beekeepers' productivity may be affected by the apple farmers' choices, and the apple farmers' productivity may be affected by the beekeepers' choices, but (in Meade's hypothetical situation) they don't trade with one another so the market doesn't do anything to push them towards making choices that work well together. (In which case, e.g., you might want the government to step in somehow -- regulating those choices, or arranging taxes or subsidies that encourage mutually beneficial behaviour, or whatever.)

But allegedly it turns out that in at least some cases where you have beekeepers and apple farmers near to one another they do trade with one another -- with e.g. contracts stipulating what sort of bees the beekeepers are going to keep -- and the market does do its thing, and the result is efficient allocation of resources.

Here's a paper by Steven Cheung about bees and apples in the Pacific Northwest. It claims (I haven't checked any of its empirical claims or its theoretical analysis): https://www.jstor.org/stable/724823

Oops! I accidentally the last sentence. It should say something like: "It claims (I haven't checked any of its empirical claims or its theoretical analysis) to find the effects I described in the paragraph above: there are contracts, the market does its thing, and the result is efficient resource allocation."