It's just common sense.
Common sense would suggest that you and I could only guess. We can only know after the fact by observing his actions.
A and B go to court because A stole a loaf of bread from B. The court awards B $10,000. A refuses to pay. Now what?
Nothing, anything beyond the agreed upon price between the two parties is irrelevent to our discussion.
Did you miss the part about not being a one-off payment? (If you think $3.00 is fair, buy the milk; if you don't, don't. But if you only have $1.00 on you, and the milk-seller agrees to give you think milk now and take remaining $2.00 next week, and next week you refuse to pay up, then what?)
It dosent matter whether its a one time payment or installments. A price was agreed on and that price reflects the two parties subjective values. Anything beyond that is irrelevent.
The behaviours of imaginary people we're making up?
I bought a sandwich today. Prior to me buying the sandwitch you have no information about my value scales. After I purchased the sandwich you do. I value the sandwich more than the $7 it cost me. The owners of the sandwich shop valued the $7 more than the sandwich. Our subjective values were translated into an objective price.
To clarify something that may be confusing the issue. Can government create wealth is the question. I am approaching this question from a strickly economic perspective. Which means I am limiting my consideration to only economic goods. Economic goods have exchange values which are prices. By comparing the prices of what was lost versus what was gained is the only way, in my opinion to answer the original question.