The term "caveat emptor", Latin for "let the buyer beware", took on new significance in my recent unpleasant experience with online shopping.

Having narrowly won an auction bid on eBay for a luxury timepiece, I promptly paid when its automated message congratulated me on winning the bid and advised me to pay.

However, the seller provided only one payment option - a direct bank transfer.

All other signs were reassuring: The seller had accumulated multiple good reviews, the bidding was fierce and everything appeared legitimate.

To my consternation, two days after my direct payment to an Italian bank, eBay messaged me about "suspicious activities" from the European seller's eBay account.

It appeared that his account had been compromised and someone else had fraudulently used his account with the intention to defraud.

What eBay did next was unbecoming of a global e-commerce leader.

It sent me a message denying that I had made payment and saying it would have to cancel my recent order.

It subsequently deleted all relevant details, including the payment advice, bidding page, as well as the item and bid numbers.

This hampered my lodging a complaint with eBay as I could not quote the item number.

Similarly, these deletions meant the evidence I provided to my local bank and the police was less than comprehensive.

Shouldn't eBay provide better oversight and offer better legal protection for buyers who are in this situation?

If eBay does not provide protection for bank transfers, it may as well disallow the listing of sellers who do not allow payment via PayPal and credit cards.

Amos Wu Pom Hin