$1.$ Adam owes Cathy $$100.$ Adam tells Cathy that he doesn$$t have $$100$ to repay her, but that he has agreed with Bob that Adam will mow Bob$$s lawn, in exchange for which Bob will pay Cathy $$100.$ Adam mows Bob$$s lawn, but Bob does not pay Cathy or Adam anything. Because Bob has not paid Cathy, can Cathy successfully sue Bob for the $$100$ payment? More generally, is Cathy a $3$rd party beneficiary of the agreement between Adam and Bob on these facts? $[$TWO POINTS TO NOTE: $(1)$ There are $2$ agreement in this set of facts $--$ an agreement between Adam and Cathy $($in which Adam owes Cathy $$100)$ and an agreement between Adam and Bob $($in which Adam agrees to mow Bob's lawn in return for Bob paying $$100$ to Cathy$).$ You need to keep these two agreements clear as you think about these questions; and $(2)$ If your initial response to these questions is that "Cathy can't sue because these agreements apparently are not in writing and therefore are not valid and enforceable agreements," ASSUME THAT BOTH AGREEMENTS ARE IN WRITING.$]$

$2.$ Assume the same fact pattern as set forth in the previous question $($number $1),$ except that the agreement between Adam and Bob requires Bob to pay the $$100$ to Adam $($not to Cathy$),$ and that Cathy is not mentioned in the agreement between Adam and Bob. Adam mows Bob's lawn, but Bob does not pay Adam anything. Cathy knows that Adam has mowed Bob's lawn, that Bob has not paid Adam, and that Adam cannot pay Cathy $$100$ until Bob pays Adam $$100.$ Can Cathy successfully sue Bob to require that Bob pay $$100$ to Adam? More generally, is Cathy a $3$rd party beneficiary of the agreement between Adam and Bob on these facts?