for establishing a “fiduciary capacity” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4) are generally more narrow than those criteria comprising the broader meaning of fiduciary as a relationship involving trust, good faith, and confidence. See, e.g., Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 796 (9th Cir.1986) (stating that the “broad, general definition of fiduciary — a relationship involving confidence, trust and good faith — is inapplicable in the dischargeability context”); In re Gans, 75 B.R. 474, 489 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1987) (addressing a concern that the definition of fiduciary for purposes of discharge be narrowly construed to preclude “commercial debtor-creditor transactions in which the debtor merely violated the terms of his agreement with the creditor”); In re Rausch, 49 B.R. 562, 564 (Bankr.D.N.J.1985) (<HOLDING>). However, we do not believe that this
holding that the general meaning of fiduciary as a person representing confidence trust and good faith is far too broad for the purposes of bankruptcy law holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established holding general fiduciary duties of confidence trust loyalty and good faith insufficient to establish the necessary fiduciary relationship for purposes of  523a4 holding that a factor who retains the money of his principal is not a fiduciary within the meaning of the bankruptcy laws holding that the defendant did not establish good faith as a matter of law