To be a little pedantic; "Clause gave a capped commission of 300% of OTE" isn't accurate - commission wasn't capped at 300%, just that after that it was subject to review by PHBs.
True, and much of the decision revolved around that point, ie if the higher amount wasn't approved, it's hard to argue against in the face of that clause. Plaintiff seemed to have made the mistake of assuming a higher payout was due, and due immediately.
They may also have been badly advised by their lawyer in not filing correct claims on other points, ie if the cap stood, they wanted the extra 100k as an option. But that was conditional on that offer being agreed and approved by both parties. Which it wasn't, so the salesperson was SOL.
The ruling also brought up whether that offer was enforceable given it seemed to be based on retroactively changing the salesperson's targets. Judge pointed out that contractually, it'd still be based on the commission plan agreed at the time of the deal. That seemed a bit dubious to me both from a contractual and accounting POV.
But such is sales. To me, this would have raised red flags to look at the deal more closely. So the salesperson wanted all the commission on a 5yr deal immediately. And if there were problems with that deal, clawbacks could have been tricky, especially if the salesperson had left the company. And to me, it's also a case study for sales people in how not to negotiate a deal, or read a contract, which are both rather important skills for sales. As the deal got closer to closing, negotiations regarding the commissions should also have been progressing.