I don't see how that's relevant. The question of what damages I suffer when you destroy my TV is separate from the question of whether or not I own it; the fair value of the property you destroyed depends on many other things besides the terms under which I bought it.

And in practice, I suspect a court would find that my contract with the person who sold it to me has no bearing on the amount you owe: my inability to fully enjoy the use of that property doesn't let you off the hook. For instance, if I'm blind and unable to see the screen, that doesn't mean you can pay me just enough to buy a damaged TV with a broken screen. The screen still has a value (I can resell a functional TV for more than a damaged one), just as the ability of the TV to operate on Wednesdays still has a value (I can negotiate with the seller for permission without buying a whole new TV, or I can just break my contract and watch it anyway).

The idea that you only own something if every third party agrees to abide by the contract under which you bought it is appropriate enough for a bitcoin forum, I guess, but I have to say this is the first I've ever heard of someone trying to apply it in the real world. Did you come up with it yourself, or is there a school of thought out there that believes libertarianism actually does require enforcing contracts on people who weren't parties to them?